Navigators Specialty Insurance Company v. Avertest, LLC

── Navigators Specialty Insurance Company v. Avertest, LLC ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: June 09, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 25-1977 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/09/2026 Pg: 1 of 15 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1977 NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AVERTEST, LLC; COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:24−cv−00932−LMB−WBP) Argued: May 7, 2026 Decided: June 9, 2026 Before GREGORY, THACKER, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: Jonathan Freiman, WIGGIN AND DANA LLP, New Haven, Connecticut, for Appellant. Margaret Fonshell Ward, DOWNS WARD BENDER HERZOG & KINTIGH, P.A., Hunt Valley, Maryland; Harold E. Johnson, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: David R. Roth, WIGGIN AND DANA LLP, New Haven, Connecticut, for Appellant. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1977 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/09/2026 Pg: 2 of 15 PER CURIAM: This case centers on a dispute between two insurance companies -- Columbia Casualty Company (“Columbia”) and Navigators Specialty Insurance Company (“Navigators”). Columbia and Navigators disagree as to which company, if either, is responsible for providing coverage for a claim against one of their insureds, Avertest, LLC. Navigators provided coverage at the time of the claim but later filed suit, alleging that Columbia was legally obligated to provide coverage. Navigators argued that Columbia was responsible for coverage because the disputed claim was “related” to an earlier claim made during Columbia’s coverage period. The district court concluded that the relevant terms of Columbia’s policy did not require it to provide coverage for the disputed claim and instead held that Navigators was required to provide coverage. We disagree. As explained below, we conclude that the disputed claim is “related” to an earlier claim that Columbia was obligated to cover. And because the two claims are related, pursuant to the terms of Columbia’s policy, we hold that Columbia is obligated to cover the disputed claim as well. Therefore, we vacate the district court’s decision. I. Avertest is a company that conducts laboratory testing of biological samples, including hair and urine, for the presence of, among other substances, illegal drugs like methamphetamine and cocaine. Avertest purchased professional liability insurance from Columbia for the period of December 17, 2013 to May 1, 2022. Beginning on May 1, 2022, Avertest purchased its professional liability insurance from Navigators. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1977 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/09/2026 Pg: 3 of 15 A. The Insurance Policies Relevant here is the insurance policy Columbia issued to Avertest for the policy period May 1, 2020 to May 1, 2021 (the “Columbia Policy”). The Columbia Policy was a “claims made” policy, which provided that Columbia: will pay all amounts up to [Columbia’s] Limit of Insurance which the Insure