A Delaware court declined to reopen a coverage dispute, standing by its ruling that one company never actually asked its insurer to defend it.
On August 13, 2026, the Superior Court of Delaware denied a motion for reconsideration filed by a group of related companies known together as the ArcLight Entities. They had asked the court to revisit its earlier finding that one of them, Limetree Bay Holdings, LLC (LBH), never requested coverage and therefore could not recover costs under the policy.
The question was whether LBH ever tendered its claim to Lexington Insurance Co. - a tender being a formal request for the insurer to take up a claim.
The ArcLight Entities relied on a January 11, 2022 letter sent to Lexington. The court found it did not request coverage for LBH. The letter said it was sent for "Limetree Bay Refining, LLC and the other Limetree Bay companies identified as named insureds in endorsement no. 3 of the captioned Policy," and that endorsement did list LBH as a "Named Insured." But the letter then defined the group actually seeking coverage as six specific companies, and LBH was not one of them.
Timing counted against the argument. The letter went out about 13 months before LBH was sued in any of the underlying lawsuits. The court noted that "sophisticated counsel" wrote it and would have said so had they meant to tender for companies not yet sued. The ArcLight Entities also conceded that the firm sending the letter did not represent LBH.
The insurer's own records did not change the result. An AIG letter dated November 3, 2023 said it "first received notice of the potential claims against [LBT] by email and letter dated January 11, 2022." But LBT was already a defendant when the January letter went out. LBH was not.
The court did leave one issue open. Its earlier opinion covered only the period up to January 25, 2024, when the ArcLight Plaintiffs requested a defense. Because this suit was filed on November 22, 2024, the court said the ArcLight Entities could still argue that the complaint itself gave Lexington notice. It did not decide that question.
For insurers and claims teams, the ruling draws a firm line: naming a company as an insured on an endorsement does not, by itself, trigger a duty to defend. A specific, authorized request does.
