USCA4 Appeal: 25-1977 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/09/2026 Pg: 1 of 15
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1977
NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
AVERTEST, LLC; COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:24−cv−00932−LMB−WBP)
Argued: May 7, 2026 Decided: June 9, 2026
Before GREGORY, THACKER, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Jonathan Freiman, WIGGIN AND DANA LLP, New Haven, Connecticut, for Appellant. Margaret Fonshell Ward, DOWNS WARD BENDER HERZOG & KINTIGH, P.A., Hunt Valley, Maryland; Harold E. Johnson, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: David R. Roth, WIGGIN AND DANA LLP, New Haven, Connecticut, for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1977 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/09/2026 Pg: 2 of 15
PER CURIAM:
This case centers on a dispute between two insurance companies -- Columbia
Casualty Company (“Columbia”) and Navigators Specialty Insurance Company
(“Navigators”). Columbia and Navigators disagree as to which company, if either, is
responsible for providing coverage for a claim against one of their insureds, Avertest, LLC.
Navigators provided coverage at the time of the claim but later filed suit, alleging that
Columbia was legally obligated to provide coverage. Navigators argued that Columbia
was responsible for coverage because the disputed claim was “related” to an earlier claim
made during Columbia’s coverage period.
The district court concluded that the relevant terms of Columbia’s policy did not
require it to provide coverage for the disputed claim and instead held that Navigators was
required to provide coverage. We disagree. As explained below, we conclude that the
disputed claim is “related” to an earlier claim that Columbia was obligated to cover. And
because the two claims are related, pursuant to the terms of Columbia’s policy, we hold
that Columbia is obligated to cover the disputed claim as well.
Therefore, we vacate the district court’s decision.
I.
Avertest is a company that conducts laboratory testing of biological samples,
including hair and urine, for the presence of, among other substances, illegal drugs like
methamphetamine and cocaine. Avertest purchased professional liability insurance from
Columbia for the period of December 17, 2013 to May 1, 2022. Beginning on May 1,
2022, Avertest purchased its professional liability insurance from Navigators.
2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1977 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/09/2026 Pg: 3 of 15
A.
The Insurance Policies
Relevant here is the insurance policy Columbia issued to Avertest for the policy
period May 1, 2020 to May 1, 2021 (the “Columbia Policy”). The Columbia Policy was a
“claims made” policy, which provided that Columbia:
will pay all amounts up to [Columbia’s] Limit of Insurance which the Insured 1 becomes legally obligated to pay as damages as a result of a claim arising out of an act, error or omission in the rendering of professional services provided that:
A. such claim is first made against the Insured during the policy period, or during the extended reporting period, if applicable, and is reported to the Insurer in accordance with the section entitled NOTICE OF CLAIMS AND POTENTIAL CLAIMS of the COMMON TERMS AND CONDITIONS[.]
J.A. 72. 2
The Columbia Policy defines a “claim” as,
A. a civil proceeding in which damages because of injury to which this insurance applies are alleged . . . or B. a written or oral demand for damages alleging injury to which this insurance applies.
J.A. 56. And, importantly, the Columbia Policy contains a related claims provision that
provides, “[a]ll related claims, whenever made, shall be considered a single claim first
The Columbia Policy used bold typeface to denote defined terms within the policy. 1
We do so here as well. 2 Citations to the “J.A.” refer to the Joint Appendix filed by the parties in this appeal.
3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1977 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/09/2026 Pg: 4 of 15
made during the policy period in which the earliest claim was first made.” Id. at 74. As
defined in the Columbia Policy, “related claims” means, “with respect to the Professional
Liability Coverage Part, all claims arising out of a single act, error or omission or arising
out of related acts, errors or omissions in the rendering of professional services.” Id. at
69. “Related acts, errors or omissions,” in turn, means “all acts, errors or omissions in
the rendering of professional services that are logically or causally connected by any
common fact, circumstance, situation, transaction, event, advice or decision.” Id.
(italicized emphasis supplied).
Taken together, these provisions dictate that related claims are those where the acts,
errors, or omissions giving rise to the claims are “logically or causally connected by any
common fact, circumstance, situation, transaction, event, advice or decision.” J.A. 69.
And related claims, “whenever made,” are “considered a single claim first made during the
policy period in which the earliest claim was first made.” Id. at 74.
After Avertest’s policy with Columbia expired, it switched insurers and purchased
a claims-made policy from Navigators (the “Navigators Policy”). The Navigators Policy
differs in only one relevant way from the Columbia Policy: it contains an exclusion, known
as Exclusion Y. Exclusion Y provides that the Navigators Policy “does not apply
to . . . any Claim that was reported to, or covered under, another program of insurance prior
to this policy.” J.A. 142.
4 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1977 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/09/2026 Pg: 5 of 15
B.
The Gonzalez Lawsuit
In February 2021, during the time period that Columbia insured Avertest, Justin
Gonzalez and Darrell E. Tullock Jr. sued Avertest in the Circuit Court for the County of
St. Louis, Missouri (“Gonzalez”). The case was removed to the Eastern District of
Missouri on April 6, 2021. Gonzalez v. Avertest, LLC, No. 4:21-cv-00403-DGK (E.D. Mo.
Feb. 23, 2022). The Gonzalez complaint, which was styled as a class action, alleged that
“Avertest prioritized the speed in which it returned test results to its customers over
ensuring that proper testing methods were followed.” J.A. 216. Gonzalez further alleged
that Avertest advertised itself as being “one of only 30 labs with accreditation by College
of American Pathologists-Forensic Drug Testing (CAP-FDT) and accredited by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services Clinical Laboratory Improvements
Amendment (CLIA) and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).” Id. at 218. But,
according to Gonzalez, Avertest did not follow the quality control “guidelines established
by the College of American Pathologists for forensic drug testing” (the “CAP standards”).
Id. at 219.
By way of example, Gonzalez alleged that “[f]or an acceptable quality control
scheme, samples with known concentrations, or ‘quality controls,’ should be tested
alongside the patients’ samples.” J.A. 220. Those quality controls “should match the
expected value within at least 20% for the entire run of patient samples to be scientifically
acceptable.” Id. But, Gonzalez alleged, “[o]n information and belief, [Avertest’s] quality
controls consistently failed, yet the test results were still reported. Moreover, technical
5 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1977 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/09/2026 Pg: 6 of 15
staff [at Avertest] would manipulate data to force quality controls to be within the
acceptable range.” Id.
Gonzalez also alleged that CAP standards require use of an “internal standard” --
“usually a drug with isotopes (elemental differences) distinct from the drug of interest.”
J.A. 220. “Internal standards are added to the sample at the beginning of the sample
preparation process” so that the result can be “compared to an expected value.” Id. If the
result does not match the expected value of the internal standard, “the results of the patient
specimen analysis should not be used.” Id. In other words, “the internal standard ensures
that the output numbers from the test are accurate, because the results should show the
exact quantity of the internal standard placed into the test.” Id. But according to Gonzalez,
“[Avertest] did not follow the proper process as to internal standards . . . [and] used test
results even where the results supposedly showed than an internal standard that was used
did not exist.” Id. at 221.
Additionally, Gonzalez alleged that Avertest had “serious problems with the
calibration curves [it] used for its tests.” J.A. 221. Gonzalez explained that “a quantitative
test, also known as a confirmation, compares an unknown sample against a defined
numerical range. The defined range is based on a calibration curve with five to seven data
points. The calibration curve can give a definitive amount of a drug that is present in the
sample.” Id. That is, the calibration curve allows the results to not just identify a “positive
or negative, but also ‘how much.’” Id. “Prior to analyzing the patient specimens, the
calibration curve should be analyzed for accuracy, including the coefficient of
determination, which measures variance around the regression line of the curve.” Id. But
6 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1977 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/09/2026 Pg: 7 of 15
according to Gonzalez, Avertest “frequently and consistently used calibration curves that
failed to meet acceptance criteria and/or manipulated data, yet reported the patients’ results
anyway.” Id. “One frequent method used to manipulate data was to pull calibration curve
data from runs going back days to weeks in order to find a curve that was within the
acceptance criteria. [Avertest] would then use this ‘historical’ curve, which is not an
acceptable practice by the CAP guidelines.” Id. at 221–22.
In sum, Gonzalez alleged that “[i]nstead of conducting its tests with proper internal
standards, quality controls, and calibration curves, [Avertest] prioritized the speed of its
results, consistent with its above claim that it gets results faster than other companies.” J.A.
222. As a result of these errors, the Gonzalez plaintiffs alleged that Avertest reported false
positive drug tests. And the Gonzalez plaintiffs alleged that such false positive drug tests
caused them to lose unsupervised visitation with their children. These severe consequences
resulted because the Gonzalez plaintiffs were required to take drug tests, which were sent
to Avertest for testing, as part of ongoing legal proceedings related to their child custody
rights.
Columbia paid for Avertest’s defense in the Gonzalez litigation and ultimately
settled with the individual plaintiffs. The Gonzalez lawsuit was dismissed on February 23,
2022, without ever being certified as a class action. Avertest’s insurance policy through
Columbia expired on May 1, 2022.
7 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1977 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/09/2026 Pg: 8 of 15
C.
The Foulger Lawsuit
Beginning on May 1, 2022, Avertest obtained professional liability insurance
through Navigators. On May 18, 2022, just 18 days after Avertest switched insurance
carriers, Avertest’s counsel notified Columbia of an April 7 Facebook post by a user
identified as “Hi D Hall,” which stated that “[A] lawyer Richard S. Cornfield is filing a
new federal Class Action against [Avertest] and he is seeking additional Plaintiffs from
any state. If anyone is seeking a lawyer to sue [Avertest] for false positive drug tests and
would like to join this suit you can contact the attorney . . . .” J.A. 515. Avertest’s email
to Columbia stated that given “Mr. Cornfield’s past involvement in the Gonzalez class
action litigation, we wanted to advise [Columbia] of the above information to provide
notice of potential litigation . . . . [We] believe that a potential new suit is being actively
pursued. We will, of course, advise your office when and if a formal lawsuit is filed.” Id.
Columbia responded that the Facebook post did not yet meet the definition of a “Claim”
pursuant to its policy, but it advised Avertest to notify it immediately “[i]f a lawsuit is filed
and it turns out that this is not a new claim, but rather a refiling of a claim that was
previously reported to Columbia, such as [Gonzalez].” Id.
On August 22, 2022, eight new plaintiffs (represented by the same counsel as the
Gonzalez plaintiffs) sued Avertest in the Eastern District of Missouri (“Foulger”). Foulger
v. Avertest, LLC, No. 4:22-cv-878-SHL (E.D. Mo.). The Foulger complaint alleged that
Avertest used improper collection and testing methods and ultimately reported false
positive drug tests that caused the plaintiffs to suffer emotional distress, lose unsupervised
8 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1977 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/09/2026 Pg: 9 of 15
visitation with their children, and in some cases lose custody of their children. While the
Foulger complaint was broader than the one in Gonzalez, it included the same basic
allegations of Avertest’s improper testing methods which did not align with CAP standards.
Specifically, the Foulger complaint alleged word for word the same errors relative to
quality controls, internal standards, and calibration curves as detailed above in the
Gonzalez complaint. And, like Gonzalez, Foulger alleged that Avertest “prioritized the
speed of its results” over compliance with CAP standards. J.A. 327.
On August 24, 2022, Avertest emailed Navigators notice of a new claim based on
the Foulger complaint. The next day, on August 25, 2022, Avertest also notified Columbia
that Foulger had been filed. Columbia denied coverage, explaining that because “the
Policies issued to [Avertest] expired on May 1, 2022, there is no coverage for this claim.”
J.A. 516. For its part, Navigators accepted Avertest’s tender of the Foulger claim “under
a full reservation of all rights and defenses available under the [Navigators Policy].” Id.
But, after further investigation, Navigators determined that Columbia should defend
Foulger because it is related claim to Gonzalez. Thus, Navigators tendered the defense to
Columbia, but Columbia again denied coverage.
D.
This Lawsuit
Navigators filed this lawsuit against Avertest and Columbia, seeking declaratory
judgment that (1) it has no duty to defend Avertest in the Foulger lawsuit; (2) it has no
duty to indemnify Avertest for any Foulger judgment; and (3) it has a right to
reimbursement from Columbia for the Foulger defense.
9 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1977 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/09/2026 Pg: 10 of 15
All parties filed cross motions for summary judgment below. Navigators sought
summary judgment on all of its requests for declaratory relief, while Columbia sought a
declaratory judgment that it had no duty to reimburse Navigators for the Foulger defense.
Avertest simply sought coverage from either of the two insurers.
As it does here, the dispute below centered on whether the Gonzalez and Foulger
lawsuits are “related claims,” as that term is defined in the Columbia policy. Navigators
argued the two lawsuits are related, such that Columbia is required to pay for the Foulger
defense because Avertest’s claim for Gonzalez coverage was made during Columbia’s
policy period. The district court denied Navigators’ motion for summary judgment but
granted Columbia’s cross-motion. The district court recognized that Gonzalez and Foulger
“contain several similarities” such as “alleg[ing] the same general root causes for the same
types of injuries,” “alleg[ing] similar results,” “alleg[ing] the same type of consequences,”
“rely[ing] on similar background facts and allegations,” and “us[ing] overlapping language
to describe the claims.” J.A. 519. But, the district court found that there were also
“substantial differences” between the two, id. at 520, and held that “[b]ecause of all these
factual legal differences, the Gonzalez and Foulger lawsuits are not the same or related
claims,” id. at 523. Therefore, the court determined that the two lawsuits were not related,
Navigators was bound to provide coverage for Foulger, and Columbia was not required to
reimburse Navigators for its defense in Foulger.
Navigators timely filed this appeal.
10 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1977 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/09/2026 Pg: 11 of 15
II.
We review de novo the district court’s decision denying Navigators’ motion for
summary judgment and granting Columbia’s cross-motion. DENC, LLC v. Phila. Indemn.
Ins. Co., 32 F.4th 38, 46 (4th Cir. 2022). In doing so, we apply the same standard as the
district court. Id. Summary judgment is appropriate only “if the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
III.
On appeal, we must decide whether the Gonzalez and Foulger lawsuits are “related
claims” as that term is defined in Columbia’s policy. If they are, Columbia was responsible
for defending Avertest in the Foulger litigation, and it must reimburse Navigators.
Like the district court, we apply Virginia law. 3 “In Virginia, an insurance policy is
a contract, and, as in the case of any other contract, the words used are given their ordinary
and customary meaning when they are susceptible of such construction.” Towers Watson
& Co. v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 67 F.4th 648, 653 (4th Cir. 2023) (cleaned
up). “If policy language is ambiguous, that ambiguity must be resolved against the policy’s
drafter, which ‘is almost always the insurer.’” Id. (quoting Erie Ins. Exch. v. EPC MD 15,
LLC, 822 S.E.2d 351, 355 (Va. 2019)). We must take care, however, to not “give up
3 Where, as here, we have diversity jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, “we apply controlling state law on settled issues and predict how the state’s highest court would rule on unsettled issues.” Tederick v. LoanCare, LLC, 168 F.4th 154, 165 (4th Cir. 2026) (citation omitted).
11 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1977 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/09/2026 Pg: 12 of 15
quickly on the search for a plain meaning by resorting to the truism that a great many
words—viewed in isolation—have alternative, and sometimes quite different, dictionary
meanings.” Erie Ins. Exch., 822 S.E.2d at 355. Instead, Virginia has instructed that policy
language is truly ambiguous only where the “competing interpretations . . . are ‘equally
possible’ given the text and context of the disputed provision.” Id. at 356 (citation omitted).
Looking to the Columbia Policy’s definition of “related claims,” the relevant
question here is whether the “acts, errors, or omissions” giving rise to the Gonzalez and
Foulger claims are “logically or causally connected by any common fact, circumstance,
situation, transaction, event, advice or decision.” J.A. 69 (emphasis supplied). If we
answer that question in the affirmative, then the two claims are related.
Just recently, this court considered similar policy language in Navigators Ins. Co. v.
Under Armour, Inc., 165 F.4th 171 (4th Cir. 2026). In Under Armour, Under Armour and
its insurers disputed whether a 2017 SEC investigation into the company’s accounting
practices was “related” to several derivative and securities suits filed in 2016 over Under
Armour’s public statements about its future business prospects. 165 F.4th at 174. The
related claims provision of the policy at issue there provided that “All Claims . . . that arise
out of the same fact, circumstance . . . or Wrongful Acts that are logically or causally
related shall be deemed one Claim.” Id. at 181. Considering the plain meaning of the
relevant terms, we determined that “two things are logically related when they are
reasonably or rationally connected to or associated with one another.” Id. at 183. And
applying that definition, we held that the derivative suit claim and the SEC claim were
logically related because they “were part of the same scheme.” Id. at 186. Specifically,
12 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1977 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/09/2026 Pg: 13 of 15
we concluded that Under Armour’s “accounting measures” that prompted the SEC action
“covered up Under Armour’s actual financial condition, allowing its officers to make the
public statements” that underlied the derivative suits. Id. at 185.
We previously considered a similar definition of “related claims” as in the Columbia
Policy -- “wrongful acts which are logically or causally connected by reason of any
common fact . . . ” -- and concluded that it was “expansive.” W.C. & A.N. Miller Dev. Co.
v. Continental Cas. Co., 814 F.3d 171, 176 (4th Cir. 2016). There, we held that claims in
one lawsuit involving an alleged breach of a real estate contract by not paying a fee and
claims in a separate lawsuit alleging that the insured had taken steps to prevent the entity
from collecting on the judgment were related. In our view, those claims “share[d] a
common nexus of fact” because, but for the breach of contract, neither lawsuit would have
taken place. Id. at 177.
Applying those precedents to the facts here, we hold that the Gonzalez and Foulger
lawsuits were related claims pursuant to Columbia’s policy. As explained above, both
lawsuits alleged that Avertest reported false positive drug tests due to fundamental
problems with its testing methodology: Its “quality control practices . . . did not meet
guidelines established by the College of American Pathologists,” J.A. 219–20 (Gonzalez
complaint); 324–25 (Foulger complaint); it failed to “follow the proper process as to
internal standards,” id. at 221; 326; and there were “serious problems with the calibration
curves [Avertest] uses for its tests,” including manipulation of data. Id. at 221–22; 326–27.
In other words, both lawsuits alleged that the same scheme (Avertest’s prioritization of
13 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1977 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/09/2026 Pg: 14 of 15
speed over compliance with CAP standards) resulted in the same errors (false positive drug
tests) and caused the same general harm (negative impacts on pending child custody cases).
It is immaterial that there were also differences in the two lawsuits -- different
plaintiffs, different individual tests, different allegations as to errant collection practices,
etc. -- because the policy does not ask whether two claims are more similar than different.
Instead, the Columbia Policy specifies that two claims are related if the acts, errors, or
omissions giving rise to the claims are “logically or causally connected by any common
fact, circumstance, situation, transaction, event, advice or decision.” J.A. 69 (emphasis
supplied). And here, the errors giving rise to both Gonzalez and Foulger are more than
just logically connected by any one fact. They are, instead, the very same errors in testing
methodology. Therefore, we readily hold that the two claims are related.
And, because Gonzalez and Foulger are related claims, the Columbia Policy
requires Columbia to provide coverage for Foulger. As noted above, the related claims
provision specifies that “[a]ll related claims, whenever made, shall be considered a single
claim first made during the policy period in which the earliest claim was first made.” J.A.
74 (italicized emphasis supplied). Thus, because the first claim, Gonzalez, was made
during Columbia’s 2020–2021 policy period, Foulger is treated as part of that single claim,
made during that same policy period.
Columbia tries to avoid this outcome by arguing that the claims-made nature of its
policy precludes coverage because the Foulger claim was not made and reported to it
during the policy period. But this argument seeks to rewrite the policy by removing
“whenever made” from the related claims provision. If Columbia wanted to limit related
14 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1977 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/09/2026 Pg: 15 of 15
claims to those individually made during the policy period, it could have done so. But it
did not. Instead, the policy plainly allows for related claims coverage by treating the
second claim, “whenever made,” and the first claim together as “a single claim first made
during the policy period in which the earliest claim was first made.” J.A. 74. The
Gonzalez claim was made and reported to Columbia during the 2020–2021 policy period,
and Columbia rightly provided coverage for it. Because Foulger is a related claim, it is
treated as a single claim together with Gonzalez. Thus, under the policy, Columbia must
treat Foulger the same as Gonzalez and consider the Foulger claim made and reported to
Columbia when Gonzalez was -- during the coverage relationship.
IV.
Because Gonzalez and Foulger are related claims, Columbia -- not Navigators 4 --
was obligated to provide Avertest’s defense against the Foulger lawsuit. The district
court’s contrary decision is vacated, and the case is remanded for entry of judgment
consistent with this opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED
4 As explained above, Exclusion Y in the Navigators Policy provides that Navigators does not provide coverage for any claim that was “covered under[] another program of insurance prior to this policy.” J.A. 142.