A Red Bull warehouse fire has pulled CNA into court, with a solar manufacturer claiming its insurer refused to defend it when a major lawsuit landed.
ET Solar, a California company that makes and sells solar panels, sued The Continental Insurance Company - known as CNA - on June 29, 2026, saying the carrier refused to defend it against a multimillion-dollar lawsuit. The case was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
According to the complaint, it traces back to a fire on May 21, 2023 at a warehouse in Waddell, Arizona, owned by Red Bull North America. The filing says some of ET Solar's panels had been installed there and commissioned around April 2023 as part of a solar power system. After the fire, Red Bull's insurer, HDI Global, allegedly paid Red Bull $9,100,000 for insured losses, and the complaint says Red Bull claims more than $1,000,000 in further uninsured losses.
HDI - stepping into Red Bull's shoes as subrogee, meaning it took over Red Bull's right to recover - joined Red Bull in suing ET Solar in California state court on May 15, 2025, claiming the panels caused the fire damage. An amended complaint followed on August 7, 2025.
ET Solar turned to CNA, which had issued two policies running July 23, 2022 to July 23, 2023: a primary package policy with general liability coverage and an excess and umbrella policy. The primary policy's insuring agreement is the crux of the fight: "We [(CNA)] will pay those sums that the Insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which this insurance applies. We will have the right and duty to defend the Insured against any suit seeking those damages. . . ."
That language matters because a duty to defend usually kicks in before anyone settles whether the underlying claim is covered at all.
According to the complaint, CNA opened claims under both policies, then on June 27, 2025 sent a denial letter disclaiming coverage. ET Solar's lawyers demanded a reversal on April 21, 2026. On May 8, 2026, the complaint says, CNA maintained its position.
ET Solar alleges the refusal left it carrying defense costs and liability on its own. The filing claims CNA misrepresented policy provisions, failed to adopt reasonable claim-processing standards, and asserted unreasonable readings of the policies to avoid paying.
The suit brings three claims: declaratory relief on the duty to defend, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On the bad-faith claim, ET Solar alleges CNA acted "with oppression, fraud, and/or malice" under California Civil Code § 3294, and seeks punitive damages along with compensatory damages, fees and costs.
The allegations have not been tested in court, and no court has ruled on any of the claims.
