A Delaware court on July 9 denied Chubb and National Union’s attempts to appeal early in their ongoing fight with Mattel over defense costs tied to toxic exposure claims.
The case stems from lawsuits - known as the RNPS Claims - brought against Mattel and Fisher-Price by individuals alleging respiratory injuries linked to long-term exposure to products made over several decades. With claims scattered across different years and jurisdictions, Mattel turned to its excess liability insurers for coverage. The group includes XL Insurance America, Chubb (through ACE entities), National Union Fire Insurance, Great American Assurance, and several others.
In a March 2025 decision, Delaware Superior Court Judge Mary M. Johnston ruled that the RNPS Claims amounted to a single “occurrence” under the policies and must be allocated based on the injury year. The court also found Great American has a duty to defend Mattel for claims tied to 2013.
Several issues were left undecided, including how specific policy provisions might impact coverage. Among them: the “Corridor Retention,” National Union’s PCOH (Products and Completed Operations Hazard) Endorsement, and a Trailing Retention Endorsement that could, depending on its reading, eliminate the duty to defend altogether. Those questions are scheduled for trial.
But Chubb and National Union wanted out sooner. In late June, they asked the court to either allow a partial final judgment or approve an interlocutory appeal. Chubb argued that, based on the court’s earlier findings, its policies - along with those issued by Aspen and American Guarantee - could no longer be triggered by future RNPS claims. Chubb also noted it had already spent more than $100 million defending Mattel and sought to cut its losses.
Judge Johnston denied both requests. In her July 9 order, she wrote that unresolved issues - particularly around the policy endorsements - meant it was too early to certify an appeal. She added that future RNPS claims might still implicate other policy years, depending on when injuries allegedly occurred.
The court also dismissed the financial argument. Simply having spent millions on defense, Johnston wrote, wasn’t enough to meet the standard for early appeal. If financial impact alone were enough, she noted, “there would be partial final judgment entered in virtually every case.”
National Union’s separate request to appeal the court’s decision not to interpret its PCOH Endorsement at the summary judgment stage was rejected as well. The court emphasized that disputes over policy interpretation don’t qualify as “substantial issues” warranting immediate appellate review under Delaware rules.
For now, the case remains in the trial phase, with key coverage and defense issues still open. The court’s ruling serves as a reminder: in high-dollar insurance fights, patience isn’t optional.
