Aspen Specialty Insurance Company has sued Scottsdale Insurance Company in federal court, claiming Scottsdale refused - three times - to cover a shared client's defense in a student housing assault case. The complaint, filed September 11, 2026, in the US District Court for the District of Nevada, seeks a court order confirming Scottsdale's coverage obligations and full reimbursement of the defense and settlement costs Aspen says it was forced to pay.
The case traces back to March 2, 2023, when two nonresidents were wrongfully granted access to a Las Vegas student housing property near the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, according to the complaint. Once inside, the filing alleges, they entered a resident's apartment, assaulted him, destroyed property, and stole items of significant value.
The resident later sued the building's owner, its management company, and the security firm contracted to protect the property, among others, in Clark County District Court. The management company - Aspen's insured - had hired the security firm under a services agreement that required the firm to carry its own general liability and umbrella insurance and to add the management company as an additional insured, meaning the management company would be covered under the security firm's policy as if it were a named policyholder.
The security firm's general liability policy was issued by Scottsdale. That policy, the complaint alleges, included a blanket endorsement automatically extending coverage to any party the security firm had contractually agreed to insure. The services agreement also required coverage on a primary and noncontributory basis - in plain terms, Scottsdale's policy was supposed to pay first, without splitting costs with any other insurer.
The required coverage limits under the services agreement, according to the filing, were $1 million per occurrence and $2 million in the aggregate for general liability, plus $4 million for umbrella liability.
Aspen alleges it formally asked Scottsdale to take over the management company's defense on May 12, 2025. Scottsdale refused. Aspen tried again on May 15, 2026, and a third time on May 28, 2026. Both requests were denied, the complaint states.
Left holding the bill, Aspen alleges it had no choice but to hire defense lawyers for its insured and ultimately fund the settlement. The resident signed a settlement and release on July 16, 2026, covering the management company and related entities. A separate settlement was reached on behalf of UNLV due to confidentiality obligations, the filing adds, with Aspen paying those amounts as well.
The complaint raises two claims. The first asks the court to declare that the management company qualifies as an additional insured under Scottsdale's policy and is entitled to primary and noncontributory coverage. The second relies on equitable subrogation - a principle that lets an insurer that paid another insurer's bill step into the insured's shoes and recover those costs. Aspen is seeking reimbursement of all defense fees, costs, and settlement payments, plus prejudgment interest.
Aspen's own policy, the complaint notes, contains an "other insurance" provision making Aspen's coverage excess - meaning it only kicks in after any primary insurance available to its insured under another carrier's policy has been exhausted. That provision, the filing argues, confirms Scottsdale's policy sat underneath as the primary layer.
The complaint does not disclose the total defense costs or settlement amounts at issue.
These are allegations in a newly filed complaint, and no court has made any determination on the merits.
