Travelers is suing Lowe's over a windstorm injury at a Texas store, arguing the retailer's own actions disqualify it from coverage under a vendor's policy.
The case, filed March 20, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, centers on an April 7, 2022 incident at a Lowe's store in Longview, Texas. Wynona Harbison alleges she was exiting the store during a windstorm when she was struck by a sod hut - an outdoor structure - that was lifted by a gust of wind, causing serious personal injuries.
The sod hut had been manufactured, furnished, and installed by Harmony Outdoor Brands, a Lowe's vendor. According to the filing, Harmony's contractor properly staked and anchored the structure at the time of installation. After that, Harmony had no further involvement with it.
What happened next is at the heart of the dispute. According to a written statement from Lowe's employee Rafael Marroquin, produced during discovery in the underlying injury case, on March 16, 2022, he moved the sod hut from the back of the store to the front using a forklift, on the direction of department manager Keira Gibson. The structure was never re-anchored.
About two weeks before the windstorm, a Harmony employee noticed the sod hut had been moved and was unsecured. That employee flagged the issue to a Lowe's employee and was told it would be taken care of. According to the filing, Lowe's failed to re-anchor the structure.
The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company and The Travelers Property Casualty Company of America — both Travelers entities that issued general liability and umbrella policies to Harmony - are now asking the court to declare that Lowe's has no right to a defense or indemnity under either policy.
Their argument runs on three tracks. The vendor endorsement on the general liability policy extends coverage to additional insureds only for claims that "arise out of" Harmony's products. Travelers contends that Lowe's liability flows entirely from its own decision to relocate and leave unsecured a structure it owned and controlled - not from anything Harmony did.
Even if the sod hut still qualifies as Harmony's product, the policy contains an exclusion for "any change in 'your products' made by such vendor." Moving a properly anchored structure and leaving it unsecured, Travelers argues, falls squarely within that exclusion.
On the umbrella side, Travelers points to a provision that bars coverage for additional insureds when the contractually required minimum limits are already met by the underlying policy. The vendor agreement between Harmony and Lowe's required $1,000,000 per occurrence - the exact amount the general liability policy provides. That, Travelers says, leaves no room for umbrella coverage.
No decision has been reached in the case. Lowe's has not yet responded, and the underlying injury lawsuit remains pending in Gregg County, Texas.
For insurers and risk professionals, the case serves as a reminder: additional insured status is not a blanket shield. When a retailer takes control of a vendor's product and something goes wrong, the vendor's policy may not follow.
