Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni called a truce in May. Their insurers, it seems, have not.
In new court papers, Baldoni's lawyers have repeated their argument that QBE Insurance Corporation was obligated to pay for his defense against Lively's claims. They are asking a Los Angeles Superior Court judge to decide the point without a trial. Judge James I. Montgomery is scheduled to hear the motion for summary adjudication on November 10.
The argument is a simple one, according to Baldoni's filing, QBE's refusal to cover rests on a single defense: that Lively was an employee, so the dispute falls within an employment-related exclusion. Baldoni's team says that defense has already been knocked down, and by Lively's own case.
In April, US District Judge Lewis Liman, who oversaw the New York litigation, threw out 10 of Lively's 13 claims in a 152-page opinion and order from the Southern District of New York. A central finding was that Lively had worked on the film as an independent contractor, not an employee. That finding sank her federal harassment claims under Title VII.
Baldoni's lawyers now say QBE is bound by that finding. Their papers describe Lively as an actor, executive producer and entrepreneur with her own creative and commercial stake in the picture. They also argue that her grievances went well beyond anything connected with the shoot.
QBE sees it very differently. Its lawyers have argued that every strand of Lively's case, whether labeled harassment, retaliation, defamation or false light, grew directly out of her work as the film's leading lady. In their view, Wayfarer has played up the retaliation and defamation claims to steer the court away from the workplace setting where the dispute began.
Read next: Hollywood director sues QBE, Lloyd's over legal costs in Lively dispute
The underlying case began in December 2024. Lively sued in New York, alleging she had been harassed on set and then targeted by a retaliatory smear campaign. Baldoni hit back in January 2025 with a $400 million countersuit against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds and others, alleging defamation and extortion. Judge Liman dismissed it in June 2025 and entered final judgment that October, after Baldoni chose not to amend.
After the April ruling cut Lively's case down to three claims, the parties settled in early May, about two weeks before trial. According to reports at the time, no money changed hands.
The coverage fight is a separate case. It began in July 2025, when Wayfarer, Baldoni and fellow executives sued New York Marine and General Insurance Company, QBE and certain underwriters at Lloyd's. They alleged breach of contract and bad faith, and said the policies together were worth at least $8 million. The current motion is aimed at QBE.
Based on reporting on the July 2025 complaint. The policy wordings themselves have not been made public.
There's another front, too. Harco National Insurance Company went to federal court in New York seeking a declaration that it owes nothing under Wayfarer's management liability program. It argues that Wayfarer knew about Lively's complaints before the policy took effect, and that her lawsuit should be treated as a single claim tied to an earlier demand. Baldoni's attempt to get that case dismissed has since failed.
Read next: Deadpool's wife, a billionaire and an insurer all in one big Hollywood story
Take away the celebrity names and this is a classic coverage dispute about a definition. Employment exclusions exist to push workplace claims onto EPL, where they are meant to be underwritten and priced. If the court decides the claimant was never an employee, a claim the carrier treated as an employment matter could land inside a general liability or media form that was never built to cover it.
That matters more because the case is in California. As a general principle, a liability insurer's duty to defend there is broader than its duty to indemnify, and it can be triggered by a potential for coverage. An insurer relying on an exclusion usually carries a heavier burden.
For the insured, the irony is plain. The finding that helped defeat Lively's harassment claim is now its best argument for getting QBE to pay.
The New York ruling may not be as tidy as either side would like, though. Judge Liman decided employee status for federal civil rights purposes, and one claim that survived to the eve of trial was retaliation under California's employment statute. QBE could argue that a ruling under one statute doesn't settle what "employee" means in an insurance policy. A lot will depend on the exact wording of the exclusion, which hasn't been made public.
Read next: Worker classification overhaul signals growth – and gaps – in contractor coverage
Brokers will know the wider backdrop. Worker classification is being contested again. The US Department of Labor proposed a new independent contractor rule in February, while California keeps its stricter ABC test under AB5. The federal courts, state law, regulators and a policy form may each apply a different test. For clients that rely on high-value freelancers, from production companies to agencies to gig platforms, it's worth checking how "employee" is defined in every layer of the program, and whether exclusions use broad "arising out of" language.
Read next: Hartford fights to cap EPL coverage at $5,000 in disability claim
The Harco case carries a separate lesson on notice and related claims. A complaint raised on set, a demand letter and a lawsuit filed more than a year later can all be folded into one claim first made in an earlier policy period. If circumstances weren't reported at renewal, that can mean a declined claim years down the line.
Read next: Zurich, Hiscox in battle over who defends Giorgio Armani employee over sexual misconduct claim
None of this will be resolved before November. If Judge Montgomery sides with Baldoni, QBE could be on the hook for years of defense costs. If he sides with QBE, the fight over the bills will go on for some time yet.
