EPL Endorsements Do Not Displace “All Claims” Related-Claims Clauses Absent a True Conflict (and Prior-and-Pending Exclusions Do Not Create Coverage)

Introduction

In Urena v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America (1st Cir. Aug. 11, 2026), the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a judgment on the pleadings for an insurer in a coverage dispute arising out of pregnancy-related employment discrimination claims.

The plaintiffs—Natasha Urena and Daniel Rodriguez, administrators of the Estate of Juliana Rodriguez Morel—sought a declaration that Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America had to satisfy a default judgment Rodriguez Morel obtained against her former employer, Mammoth Tech, Inc. The key issue was whether Rodriguez Morel’s federal lawsuit filed during the Employment Practices Liability (“EPL”) policy period was nevertheless deemed “first made” before that period because it was “related” to an earlier administrative charge noticed to Mammoth before the policy period.

Summary of the Opinion

The First Circuit held that Travelers owed no coverage because the policy’s “Related Claims” provision—located in overarching “Liability Coverage Terms and Conditions” (“LCTC”) applicable to “All Claims”—treated the later federal lawsuit as part of a single related claim deemed made when the first related claim was made. Since Mammoth received notice of the 2019 administrative complaint (an “Employment Claim”) before the EPL endorsement’s policy period (Dec. 4, 2020 to Aug. 5, 2021), the related 2021 lawsuit was deemed made earlier and thus fell outside the EPL coverage grant limited to claims “first made during the Policy Period.”

The court rejected the estate administrators’ central theory that the later-executed EPL endorsement superseded (or rendered irrelevant) the LCTC “Related Claims” clause. Under New Hampshire law, endorsement language prevails only when it conflicts with the base policy. The court found no conflict: the provisions “easily work together.” It also rejected arguments premised on the endorsement’s “Prior and Pending Proceeding” exclusion and the administrators’ reliance on an out-of-state decision, Gastar Expl., Ltd. v. U.S. Specialty Ins. Co.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

  • Sevelitte v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 55 F.4th 71, 79 (1st Cir. 2022)
    Role: Supplied the standard of review for judgment on the pleadings: de novo review.
  • Rezende v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 869 F.3d 40, 42 (1st Cir. 2017)
    Role: Reinforced pleading-stage principles: accept the non-movant’s well-pleaded facts as true and draw reasonable inferences in its favor.
  • Hansen v. Sentry Ins. Co., 756 F.3d 53, 57 (1st Cir. 2014)
    Role: Confirmed de novo review of insurance policy interpretation and application of the forum state’s substantive law (New Hampshire).
  • Santos v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 201 A.3d 1243, 1249 (N.H. 2019) (quoting Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 385 F.3d 47, 55 (1st Cir. 2004))
    Role: Provided the controlling New Hampshire rule for endorsements: “the provisions contained in [an] endorsement or rider will prevail over those contained in the body of the policy” only where the provisions are in “conflict.” This rule was the doctrinal centerpiece of the court’s rejection of the administrators’ supersession theory.
  • Gastar Expl., Ltd. v. U.S. Specialty Ins. Co., 412 S.W.3d 577, 583 (Tex. App. 2013)
    Role: Invoked by the administrators to argue that related-claims and prior-and-pending provisions cannot “work together.” The First Circuit found it unpersuasive—among other reasons, it did not justify why such provisions cannot operate independently.
  • United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990)
    Role: Used to reject an underdeveloped argument (that Travelers’ denial letter “avoided” the related-claims discussion and thereby evidenced ambiguity). The court treated the contention as waived/insufficiently developed.

The opinion also referenced secondary authorities—“2 Couch on Insurance § 21:22 (3d ed. 2024)” and “45 C.J.S. Insurance § 607 (2026)”—but used them chiefly to frame (and then narrow) the administrators’ proposed categorical endorsement-controls rule by emphasizing the conflict requirement.

Legal Reasoning

  1. The policy structure made the “Related Claims” clause globally applicable.
    The LCTC terms applied to “all liability coverages” and expressly stated that a particular coverage’s terms controlled only if an LCTC provision was “inconsistent or in conflict” with that coverage. The LCTC “Related Claims” clause applied to “All Claims,” and “Related Wrongful Acts” were those sharing a “common nexus” of “any fact, circumstance, situation, event or decision.”

    The EPL endorsement, meanwhile, covered “Loss for any Employment Claim first made during the Policy Period,” and defined when an Employment Claim is “first made” (earliest written notice to a qualifying officer). It also defined “Employment Claim” broadly to include, among other things, EEOC and similar administrative proceedings.
  2. No dispute on relatedness or timing—only on whether the related-claims clause applied.
    The administrators did not dispute that (i) the 2019 administrative complaint was an “Employment Claim,” (ii) it was first made before the EPL policy period, and (iii) the 2021 lawsuit was based on the same conduct and therefore “Related” within the policy’s definition. They conceded that if the LCTC “Related Claims” clause applied, Travelers was entitled to judgment.
  3. Endorsement language does not automatically supersede; conflict is required.
    Applying Santos v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. and Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., the court held the endorsement-controls principle is not categorical; it operates only where provisions conflict. Thus, the administrators bore the burden (at the pleadings stage) of showing a plausible conflict between the EPL endorsement and the LCTC related-claims term.
  4. The purported conflicts failed.
    • (a) “EPL defines Employment Claim; LCTC backdates it” is not a conflict.
      The court reasoned that the EPL endorsement’s silence about related-claims treatment does not negate the LCTC’s express statement that “All Claims” are subject to the related-claims rule. Read together, the EPL endorsement defines what counts as an Employment Claim and what it means for it to be “first made,” while the LCTC specifies that multiple related claims are treated as one and deemed made when the first was made. These provisions “easily work together.”
    • (b) Prior-and-pending is an exclusion; it does not affirmatively grant coverage.
      The administrators argued the endorsement’s “Prior and Pending Proceeding” provisions created a “5-year look back window,” implying that claims related to proceedings after Dec. 4, 2015 should be covered even if relatedness would backdate the claim earlier. The court rejected this as a misreading: the prior-and-pending language states Travelers “will not be liable” for loss tied to proceedings pending “as of or prior to” Dec. 4, 2015—i.e., it narrows coverage (exclusion), it does not expand it.

      The court labeled the administrators’ approach a “logical fallacy” (treating an exclusion boundary as if it were an affirmative coverage promise), and noted the clause’s placement under the heading “EXCLUSIONS.”
    • (c) Different prior-and-pending dates across coverages did not imply the LCTC clause was displaced.
      The administrators argued that because the EPL prior-and-pending date (Dec. 4, 2015) preceded the EPL policy period and differed from dates in other coverages (PCDOL and FL), this “new and different treatment” reflected intent to override the related-claims clause. The court found this unpersuasive because it did not create any textual conflict: the provisions still operate in different ways and in different circumstances.
  5. Out-of-state authority did not alter the result.
    The court found Gastar Expl., Ltd. v. U.S. Specialty Ins. Co. unhelpful even assuming similar language, because it did not supply a persuasive rationale for why related-claims and prior-and-pending provisions cannot operate independently. Here, they did.

Impact

The decision reinforces several practical and doctrinal points likely to influence future coverage disputes in the First Circuit applying New Hampshire law:

  • “Related claims” provisions in umbrella terms can govern endorsement-based coverages.
    If a policy’s general terms expressly apply to “All Claims,” an endorsement’s silence on relatedness will not, without more, prevent aggregation/backdating of claims.
  • Endorsements prevail only on a showing of true conflict.
    The ruling operationalizes Santos v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. by requiring policyholders/claimants to identify a textual inconsistency—not merely a perceived change in coverage design—to displace base-policy conditions.
  • Exclusions are not coverage grants.
    The court’s treatment of the prior-and-pending clause signals skepticism toward arguments that invert exclusions into affirmative entitlements, especially when the clause is expressly framed as “will not be liable” and appears under “EXCLUSIONS.”
  • Claims-made EPL coverage can be defeated by pre-policy administrative charges when relatedness is broad.
    Employment disputes often progress from agency charges to civil litigation. This case underscores that a broad “common nexus” relatedness definition can cause later lawsuits (even filed within the policy period) to be deemed made when the first administrative matter was noticed—potentially outside the policy period.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Judgment on the pleadings
A decision made at an early stage based only on the pleadings (complaint/answer and incorporated documents), granted when—accepting the non-movant’s factual allegations as true—the law still requires judgment for the movant.
Claims-made coverage / “first made” requirement
Coverage is triggered by when a claim is first made (and often reported) within a defined policy period, not primarily by when the underlying misconduct occurred.
Related claims / claim aggregation
A contractual rule that treats multiple claims sharing a common connection as a single claim, typically “deemed made” on the date of the earliest related claim. This prevents stacking multiple policy periods/limits for what the insurer views as one dispute.
Endorsement vs. base policy
An endorsement adds to or modifies a policy. Under New Hampshire law (as applied here), endorsement terms control only to the extent they actually conflict with the base policy; otherwise, both are read together.
Prior and pending proceeding exclusion
A clause excluding losses tied to litigation or proceedings that were already underway (or pending) as of a specified date—aimed at preventing coverage for known, ongoing disputes.

Conclusion

Urena v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America establishes a clear, coverage-significant rule: under New Hampshire law, an EPL endorsement does not displace a base policy’s “All Claims” related-claims clause absent a genuine textual conflict, and a prior-and-pending proceeding provision framed as an exclusion cannot be converted into an affirmative coverage grant. The decision highlights how administrative charges can anchor (and backdate) later litigation for claims-made EPL coverage when broad relatedness language is present—making early notice events decisive in later indemnity disputes.