The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a published opinion on January 20, 2026, reversing a U.S. District Court ruling in a complex insurance coverage dispute between Under Armour, Inc. and a consortium of nine major insurance companies. The unanimous three-judge panel sided with the insurers in *Navigators Insurance Company v. Under Armour, Inc.* (4th Cir. 2026).
Judge Quattlebaum wrote the opinion for the court, with Judge Heytens and Judge Berner joining. The case represents a significant development in insurance coverage law and marks a substantial legal setback for the athletic apparel giant.
The insurance companies that prevailed in the appeal include Navigators Insurance Company, Swiss Re Corporate Solutions America Insurance Corporation, Freedom Specialty Insurance Company, Allied World National Assurance Company, QBE Insurance Corporation, Continental Casualty Company, XL Specialty Insurance Company, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, and Argonaut Insurance Company. Endurance American Insurance Company was also listed as a plaintiff but did not participate in the appeal.
The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore, where Senior District Judge Richard D. Bennett had initially ruled in favor of Under Armour. The insurance companies appealed that decision, leading to oral arguments before the Fourth Circuit on October 22, 2025.
While the specific details of the underlying dispute were not disclosed in the available court documents, the case appears to involve significant insurance coverage issues that prompted multiple major insurers to band together in litigation against Under Armour. The consortium of insurance companies represents some of the largest names in the commercial insurance industry, suggesting the dispute involves substantial financial stakes.
The reversal by the Fourth Circuit indicates that the appeals court found the district court erred in its initial analysis of the insurance coverage issues. Published opinions from federal appeals courts carry precedential weight and can influence how similar insurance disputes are resolved in the future across the Fourth Circuit's jurisdiction, which includes Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.
The legal teams involved in the case included experienced insurance coverage attorneys from major law firms. Richard A. Simpson of Wiley Rein LLP argued for the insurance companies, while Michael T. Sharkey of Perkins Coie LLP represented Under Armour. Additional counsel for various insurance companies included attorneys from DLA Piper, Werner Ahari Mangel LLP, Azrael Franz Schwab Lipowitz & Solter LLC, and Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP.
The involvement of multiple law firms representing different insurance companies suggests that while the insurers presented a united front in the litigation, they maintained separate counsel to protect their individual interests in the coverage dispute.
Insurance coverage disputes often arise when companies face significant claims or legal liabilities and seek coverage under their commercial insurance policies. These cases frequently involve complex questions about policy interpretation, coverage triggers, and the scope of insurance obligations. The fact that this case resulted in a published opinion indicates the Fourth Circuit viewed the legal issues as sufficiently important to create binding precedent.
For Under Armour, the reversal represents a legal defeat that could have financial implications depending on the underlying coverage dispute. The company may now face greater exposure to whatever claims or liabilities prompted the original insurance coverage battle.
The insurance industry will likely view this decision as a positive development, particularly given the consortium of major insurers that participated in the litigation. Published appellate decisions that favor insurance companies can strengthen their position in future coverage disputes and provide helpful precedent for similar cases.
The case also demonstrates the significance of appellate review in complex commercial litigation. Despite losing at the district court level, the insurance companies' successful appeal shows the importance of pursuing appellate remedies when substantial legal and financial interests are at stake.
Looking ahead, Under Armour could potentially seek further review of the Fourth Circuit's decision by petitioning the Supreme Court for certiorari, though the high court accepts only a small percentage of such petitions. Alternatively, the case may return to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the appeals court's ruling.
The decision adds to the body of Fourth Circuit precedent on insurance coverage matters and will likely be cited in future disputes involving similar legal questions. For practitioners in the insurance coverage field, the published opinion provides new guidance on how courts in the Fourth Circuit may approach comparable disputes between insurers and policyholders.