Fortegra Specialty Insurance is asking a federal judge to let it walk away from defending a contractor sued over a Pennsylvania pipeline leak.
The carrier filed a declaratory judgment complaint on May 8, 2026 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky against its insured, Natural Energy Field Services. Fortegra wants a ruling that it has no duty to defend or indemnify the firm in eight lawsuits tied to a leak on the Sunoco Twin Oaks Pipeline.
The pipeline moves jet fuel from Delaware County, Pennsylvania to Newark, New Jersey, the complaint says. NEFS does not own it and has no control over how it runs. Energy Transfer hired the firm to monitor construction and repair work.
In January 2025, Energy Transfer brought NEFS in to look into complaints about a possible leak. The leak was confirmed on or about January 31, 2025 in Bucks County. Crews finished repairs on or about February 5, 2025, and the pipeline went back into service. NEFS kept monitoring repair work through 2025 but did no further work on the pipeline after October 3, 2025, the filing states.
The lawsuits started in early 2026. Beginning on or about January 23, 2026, Bucks County residents named NEFS as one of several defendants in eight cases filed in Philadelphia courts and federal court. According to the complaint, the claimants allege the leak caused a catastrophic environmental disaster that polluted soil, water, and air and injured their homes and health. They say the fuel smell goes back to September 2023. The causes of action against NEFS include negligence, public and private nuisance, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and medical monitoring.
The coverage fight is about dates. Fortegra issued Contractors Professional Liability Insurance Policy No. AXC1000926-00 to NEFS for the period December 19, 2025 to December 19, 2026. The limits are $2 million each claim and $2 million in the aggregate, inclusive of claim expenses, with a $15,000 deductible. The retroactive date - the earliest date a wrongful act can happen and still be covered - is December 19, 2025.
The policy states: "This is a Claims-Made and Reported Policy. Except as otherwise provided in this Policy, the coverage afforded is limited to those Claims which are first made against the Insured and reported to the Insurer during the Policy Period or Extended Reporting Period, if applicable." Each insuring agreement also requires the loss to arise from a wrongful act or pollution incident on or after the retroactive date.
Fortegra says none of that fits. The leak was confirmed on or about January 31, 2025. NEFS stopped pipeline work on or about October 3, 2025. Both sit before December 19, 2025.
The complaint also leans on the policy's "Multiple Wrongful Acts" condition, which treats two or more claims arising out of a single wrongful act, or a series of related wrongful acts, as a single claim - with the clock starting at the first one. Fortegra's logic: all eight suits trace back to one leak, the leak and the alleged negligence happened before the retroactive date, so coverage never kicks in.
NEFS notified Fortegra of the litigation on or about February 3, 2026. On or about March 20, 2026, Fortegra advised the contractor that "[a]s the Pollution Incident and the alleged Wrongful Acts [that form the basis for the Underlying Lawsuits] predate the December 15, 2025 Retroactive Date, the Company reserves its right to limit or deny coverage for both Loss and Defense Costs pursuant to the Professional Liability, Contractors Pollution Liability, or Bodily Injury / Property Damage Insuring Agreements." The insurer is defending under a reservation of rights while the coverage issue plays out.
Fortegra also flags a second carve-out. The policy excludes the cost of complying with any injunctive, declaratory or administrative relief from the definition of loss. The underlying claimants are seeking, among other things, an injunction halting the pipeline, a full water supply, temporary housing, and a "best-in-class leak detection system." Fortegra says none of that is covered loss either.
The allegations in the underlying lawsuits have not been tested in court. The coverage claims have not been ruled on. NEFS has not yet filed a response.
