When are similar insurance claims considered "related" under a claims-made policy? The Eastern District of Virginia recently offered guidance in Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Avertest, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-932 (LMB/WBP), 2025 WL 273201 (E.D. Va. July 18, 2025).
Under a claims-made policy, a later claim that “relates back” to an earlier claim may be treated as a single claim first made during the prior policy period. Because this can determine which insurer—if any—owes coverage, whether two claims are “related” is often a decisive issue. Navigators illustrates that even claims with similar allegations and nearly identical language may still be considered unrelated if they do not arise from the same or related circumstances.
Two Insurance Policies and Their Related-Claims Provisions
Avertest, LLC (“Avertest” or “Averhealth”) performs laboratory testing of biological samples, including hair and urine, for illegal drugs.
Averhealth purchased general commercial liability coverage from Columbia Casualty Company for the 2020–21 policy year (the Columbia Policy) and from Navigators Specialty Insurance Company for the 2022–23 policy year (the Navigators Policy). Both were claims-made policies, meaning each covered claims made during its policy period regardless of when the underlying conduct occurred.
The Columbia Policy provided that “all related claims, whenever made, shall be considered a single claim first made during the policy period in which the earliest claim was first made.” It defined related claims as those arising out of a single act, error, or omission, or out of “related acts, errors or omissions” that are “logically or causally connected by any common fact, circumstance, situation, transaction, event, advice or services.”
The Navigators Policy contained a similar clause: more than one claim arising out of a single act or “series of related acts, errors or omissions” is considered a single claim, deemed first made when the earliest such claim was made. The Navigators Policy also excluded claims reported under any prior policy.
The Underlying Lawsuits
In Gonzalez v. Avertest, LLC, plaintiffs Justin Gonzalez and Darrell Tullock sued in Missouri state court (later removed to federal court). They alleged that Averhealth prioritized rapid turnaround of results over proper testing methods and falsely reported that both plaintiffs tested positive for illegal drugs. Both lost unsupervised visitation with their children as a result. Columbia defended the lawsuit, which settled in February 2022 before class certification.
On August 22, 2022—about four months after the Navigators Policy began—eight new plaintiffs, represented by the same seven Missouri lawyers, filed Foulger v. Avertest LLC in the Eastern District of Missouri. Foulger repeated the general allegation that Averhealth prioritized speed over accuracy and claimed that false positives resulted in loss or restriction of child custody.
Averhealth first tendered Foulger to Columbia, which denied coverage because its policy period had ended. Averhealth then tendered to Navigators, which accepted the defense under a full reservation of rights and tendered the matter back to Columbia, which again refused.
Navigators then sued both Averhealth and Columbia, arguing that Foulger was related to Gonzalez and therefore should fall under the Columbia Policy—and be excluded by the Navigators Policy.
The Court’s Analysis in Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Avertest, LLC
The parties agreed that Virginia law applied because both policies were delivered to Averhealth in Virginia. The central issue was whether Foulger and Gonzalez were so similar as to qualify as the same or related claim.
The court noted several similarities:
However, the court emphasized important differences:
Under Virginia law, related claims must share “a common nexus of facts” and arise from “the same occurrence of wrongful acts.” The court examined several precedents, including Stewart Engineering, W.C. & A.N. Miller, and Bryan Brothers, as well as Continental Casualty Co. v. AWP United States, Inc., which held that class actions involving similar business practices were nevertheless unrelated because the specific facts, parties, and circumstances differed.
Applying this reasoning, the court held that the similarities between Gonzalez and Foulger concerned only Averhealth’s general business practices. The actual testing events occurred at different labs, involved different employees, and used different procedures. The statutory claims also arose under different state laws—Missouri in Gonzalez, and Arizona, Massachusetts, and Michigan in Foulger.
Accordingly, the court held that Foulger was not related to Gonzalez, was not covered by the Columbia Policy, and was covered by the Navigators Policy.
The Averhealth Decision and Related Claims Going Forward
The ruling was appealed on August 20, 2025, so the analysis may change. But if affirmed, Averhealth reinforces that related-claims determinations require a concrete factual link—not merely similar business practices, overlapping language, or similar alleged injuries.
Claims based on different factual circumstances, different state laws, or different causes of action may well be deemed unrelated, even if they arise from similar types of alleged misconduct.
Because related-claims analyses are highly fact-specific, policyholders and insurers should evaluate them carefully. For assistance assessing claim relatedness or other insurance coverage issues, please contact Sean Barrick (sbarrick@setlifflaw.com) at (804) 377-1276, or Steve Setliff (ssetliff@setlifflaw.com) at (804) 377-1261.
© 2025 Setliff Law, P.C.| View Our Disclaimer | Privacy Policy