Eight insurers want out of SunTrust's $240 million overdraft settlement - and the whole fight comes down to when the claim really began.
The carriers - among them AXA XL, Chubb, Travelers, AXIS and Hartford's Twin City Fire - filed suit on June 26, 2026, in the US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. They want a judge to declare they owe nothing toward the settlement, asking for a ruling that they have no duty to defend or indemnify the bank, now called Truist after its 2019 merger with BB&T.
The case is a clean lesson in how claims-made coverage works. These policies respond only to claims first made during their own policy period. The insurers wrote a tower of coverage for the October 1, 2009 to October 1, 2010 period - what the complaint calls "Tower 2" - stacking up to $120 million across a primary policy and ten excess layers.
The timing is everything. According to the complaint, customers first sued SunTrust over allegedly improper overdraft fees during the earlier 2008-2009 period, in two class actions, Peterson and Buffington. Both alleged the bank ordered transactions from largest to smallest to trigger more overdraft fees.
A third suit, Bickerstaff, landed on July 12, 2010, inside the Tower 2 window. But the insurers say it belongs with the earlier cases - and they point to the bank's own notice. According to the complaint, when SunTrust reported Bickerstaff in 2010, the bank described it as inter-related to the earlier Peterson class action received during the 2008-2009 policy period.
That matters because the policies bundle claims that are "logically or causally connected by reason of any fact, circumstance, situation, transaction or event" into a single claim, deemed first made when the earliest one was. If Bickerstaff is part of the Peterson claim, the insurers argue, it was made in the Tower 1 period - and Tower 2 never attaches. The complaint says SunTrust reversed course on May 25, 2021, recasting Bickerstaff as a Tower 2 claim.
Then comes the argument claims professionals will want to file away. Even if Tower 2 is triggered, the insurers say the payout is not covered because it is not "Damages." The policies exclude "fees, commissions or charges for Professional Services or Lending Acts paid or payable to an Insured." Since the settlement is calculated from the overdraft fees customers paid the bank, the insurers call it excluded fee money coming back - not covered loss.
According to the complaint, the bank's own filings cut the same way, with SunTrust arguing its "overdraft fees are reasonable charges that compensate the bank for the numerous services the bank provides." The insurers also offer a backup theory: that the money is really interest, which the policies also exclude.
The underlying case settled in January 2026 for a maximum of $240 million after what the complaint describes as fifteen years of litigation. SunTrust has since demanded the insurers pay their limits.
The takeaway for the market is simple. Relatedness clauses and the definition of "Damages" can settle a nine-figure question before anyone argues the merits.
These are allegations and legal positions in a complaint that has not been tested in court. No court has ruled on the coverage dispute.
