Oil and gas company Ovintiv says Berkley National Insurance walked off a wrongful death case after more than a year and a half on the defense, and wants a federal court to bring it back.
In a complaint filed May 21, 2026 in the Southern District of Texas, Ovintiv accuses Berkley of dropping coverage in a lawsuit brought by the daughter of a subcontractor who died after a 2022 fire and explosion at an Ovintiv facility in Kingfisher County, Oklahoma.
The subcontractor, Brent Cockrell, was hurt at the site on October 7, 2022 and later passed away allegedly as a result of his injuries, according to the filing. His daughter, Madelyn Cockrell, sued Ovintiv, Select Energy Services and others for negligence and ultrahazardous activity in Oklahoma County district court.
Ovintiv tendered the case to Select, the named insured on the Berkley policies, on November 17, 2023. Berkley accepted under a reservation of rights on or about September 11, 2024. On April 17, 2026, it changed course. In a letter quoted in the complaint, Berkley said it would "no longer provide a defense and indemnity to Ovintiv for the [Cockrell] Lawsuit." Ovintiv calls that move "a complete reversal of course."
The reversal is what makes this case worth watching. The complaint says Berkley did not rest its denial on a policy exclusion. The letter cited a pollution exclusion but did not premise the denial on it, per the filing. Instead, Ovintiv alleges, Berkley leaned on its reading of the Master Services Agreement between Ovintiv's predecessor, Encana, and Select.
Under the MSA, Select agreed to defend and indemnify Ovintiv for "all loss, cost, damage or expense . . . arising out of bodily injury (including sickness to or death of persons and losses therefrom to relatives or dependents) to the Contractor Group . . . in any manner caused by, directly or indirectly resulting from, incident to, connected with or arising out of performance of the Work." A separate subsection, section 10.d, covers claims tied to "the emission, discharge or release" of pollutants.
Ovintiv alleges Berkley argued that section 10.d displaced the bodily-injury obligations in sections 10.a and 10.c. On that reading, the complaint says, Select had no potential liability for Cockrell's injury, the MSA was not an "insured contract," and Ovintiv was not an "additional insured."
To get there, the complaint alleges, Berkley leaned on its own "understanding of the facts." Per the filing, Berkley believed "the explosion was caused by a gas leak from a valve that was stuck in an open position" and that the gas was "believed to have reached the running truck resulting in the engine igniting in a cloud of gas." According to the complaint, Berkley blamed Ovintiv for the alleged gas leak. Ovintiv notes that, in the same letter, Berkley conceded the underlying complaint "does not give any specific details regarding the manner of [Brent's] work or the circumstances surrounding the explosion/fire."
That gap is the heart of the case. The complaint alleges Berkley acted "in complete contravention of Texas law governing the defense of actions under insurance policies" by using facts developed in the litigation, rather than the pleading, to drop the defense.
The CGL Policy's additional insured clause, quoted in the complaint, reads: "Any person or organization with whom YOU agree in a written contract or written agreement to add as an Additional Insured on YOUR policy or to provide liability insurance for, but only with respect to liability arising out of YOUR operations or liability arising out of premises owned by or rented to YOU."
The policies define an "INSURED CONTRACT" as "any written contract or written agreement pertaining to [Select's] business under which [Select] assumes the tort liability of another party to pay damages to a third person or organization . . . ."
Ovintiv points to the MSA's instructions that Select name Encana "AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED" - written in all caps, and repeated in red text on the certificate-of-insurance instructions, the complaint says.
One more wrinkle. Ovintiv alleges neither of Berkley's current coverage arguments appeared in the September 2024 reservation of rights. Both surfaced for the first time in the April 2026 letter.
The complaint brings five counts - three declaratory judgments on the duty to defend, one on the duty to indemnify, and one for breach of contract. Ovintiv calls Berkley's positions "specious and in bad faith" and asks for attorneys' fees, costs and damages.
The allegations have not been tested in court. Berkley has not yet filed a response, and no court has ruled.
