A fresh lawsuit is putting the spotlight on how insurers handle claims, with HDI Global Insurance Company taking NorGuard Insurance Company to court over a Brooklyn injury case.
It all started with a fall at a laundromat on December 12, 2018. Jie Cao, working on repairs at New K & K Laundromat Inc., fell from a ladder and later sued both the laundromat and the landlords, Son Qun Huang and Ka Na Cao Huang. The landlords, in turn, looked to their insurance coverage for protection.
Here’s where things get interesting for anyone in the insurance business. The Huangs had leased the property to K&K under an agreement that required the tenant to buy commercial general liability insurance - at least $1 million per occurrence - and to name the Huangs as additional insureds. K&K did buy a policy from NorGuard, and according to HDI’s complaint, the policy was supposed to provide primary coverage for the landlords.
When Cao filed his lawsuit in April 2019, the Huangs quickly asked NorGuard and K&K to step in and cover their defense and any potential payout. But according to HDI, NorGuard didn’t respond until February 2022—more than two years later. Even then, NorGuard agreed in writing to defend and indemnify the Huangs “without reservation,” but HDI claims NorGuard never actually followed through. Instead, NorGuard allegedly told the Huangs they’d have to give up their contractual rights against K&K before getting coverage, and refused to settle or pay out the insurance limits.
With NorGuard not stepping up, HDI - who provided the Huangs’ excess liability coverage - says it had to take over the defense. That meant HDI paid more than $175,000 in legal costs, a bill that continues to grow. HDI also says NorGuard’s refusal to settle has left the Huangs exposed to a possible judgment that could exceed their available insurance.
The insurance details are at the heart of the dispute. The lease required K&K to keep a $1 million liability policy with the Huangs as additional insureds, and the NorGuard policy, according to HDI, was endorsed to make this coverage primary and non-contributing. HDI’s own policy only kicks in after the NorGuard policy is exhausted.
HDI’s complaint, filed August 18, 2025, asks the court to declare that NorGuard is on the hook for defending and indemnifying the Huangs, and that NorGuard should reimburse HDI for the costs it’s already paid. HDI also wants NorGuard to be responsible for any judgment that might come out of the underlying injury lawsuit.
The complaint spells out the insurance policy language, including the NorGuard policy’s definition of “insured,” which HDI says was amended to include the Huangs, and the requirement that NorGuard’s coverage be primary. HDI’s excess policy, meanwhile, allows HDI to defend if the primary insurer doesn’t, and to recover those costs from the primary insurer.
It’s worth noting that these are HDI’s claims, not established facts. NorGuard hasn’t yet filed its response, and the case is just getting started. But for insurance professionals, the case is a reminder of how the details in coverage agreements - and how insurers respond when claims are made - can have big consequences for everyone involved. As this dispute moves forward, it’s one to watch for anyone interested in how the industry handles its promises.
