First Circuit Holds Related Claims Provision Bars Coverage for Later Discrimination Suit

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, applying New Hampshire law, held that a Related Claims provision in an employment practices liability policy barred coverage for an employment discrimination lawsuit because an administrative complaint was first made before the Policy Period. Urena v. Travelers Casualty & Sur. Co. of Am., 2026 WL 2322160 (1st Cir. Aug. 11, 2026). The court found that the Related Claims provision in the policy’s General Terms and Conditions applied to EPL claims.

A former employee filed an administrative complaint alleging sex- and pregnancy-based discrimination and retaliation. The employer received notice of the complaint before the EPL Policy Period began. After the administrative complaint was dismissed, the employee filed a federal employment discrimination lawsuit during the Policy Period, obtained a default judgment, and sought satisfaction of the judgment from the employer’s EPL insurer.

The policy’s EPL endorsement afforded coverage for “Loss for any Employment Claim first made during the Policy Period.” An “Employment Claim” included both an administrative proceeding and a civil proceeding commenced by complaint. The policy’s General Terms and Conditions further provided that “All Claims . . . for Related Wrongful Acts will be considered as a single Claim” and “deemed to have been made at the time the first of such Claims . . . was made.” The insurer denied coverage on the ground that the lawsuit related back to the pre-policy administrative complaint. The employee argued that the lawsuit was a separate Claim that was first made during the Policy Period and that the EPL endorsement displaced the Related Claims provision in the General Terms and Conditions because the endorsement did not contain a comparable provision. The District Court granted the insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the employee’s estate appealed.

The First Circuit affirmed, finding that an endorsement controls over a policy provision only when the provision and endorsement conflict. There was no conflict because the Related Claims provision in the General Terms and Conditions expressly applied to “All Claims,” and nothing in the EPL endorsement excluded employment claims from that formulation.