The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court judgment in favor of Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company in *Bunnenberg v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company*, concluding an insurance coverage dispute that originated from a 2011 incident. The appeals court issued its summary order on January 23, 2026, following review of the case at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse in New York City.
The three-judge panel consisted of Circuit Judges Guido Calabresi, Gerard E. Lynch, and Eunice C. Lee. The court affirmed the January 21, 2025, judgment from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, where District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino presided over the original proceedings.
Plaintiff-appellant Tara Bunnenberg challenged the district court's ruling that favored Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, which served as the insurer for non-party Lauren McCormack. According to court documents, McCormack injured Bunnenberg during an altercation in October 2011, setting the stage for the subsequent insurance coverage dispute.
The case centered on Liberty Mutual's role as McCormack's insurance provider and questions surrounding coverage for the incident involving Bunnenberg. While the appeals court noted it would assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history, it referenced these elements only as necessary to explain its decision to uphold the lower court's judgment.
Representing Bunnenberg in the appeal was Aaron M. Goldsmith of the Law Office of Aaron M. Goldsmith, PC, based in New York. Liberty Mutual was represented by Marshall T. Potashner of Jaffe & Asher LLP in White Plains, New York.
The Second Circuit's decision takes the form of a summary order, which carries specific limitations under federal appellate procedure. Summary orders issued on or after January 1, 2007, do not establish precedential effect, meaning they cannot be cited as binding authority in future cases. However, citation to such orders is permitted under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and the Second Circuit's Local Rule 32.1.1.
When attorneys cite summary orders in documents filed with the Second Circuit, they must reference either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database, including the notation "summary order." Additionally, parties citing summary orders must serve copies on any opposing parties not represented by counsel.
The case represents the type of insurance coverage dispute that frequently emerges from personal injury incidents. When individuals suffer injuries allegedly caused by insured parties, questions often arise about the scope and application of insurance coverage. These disputes can involve complex issues of policy interpretation, coverage limits, and insurer obligations.
The Second Circuit's affirmance suggests the district court properly analyzed the legal issues surrounding Liberty Mutual's position in the matter. While the summary order format limits the precedential value of the decision, it resolves the specific dispute between Bunnenberg and Liberty Mutual regarding the insurance coverage questions that arose from the 2011 incident.
Insurance coverage litigation often involves multiple phases, beginning with initial claims handling, potentially proceeding through state insurance regulatory processes, and sometimes advancing to federal court when diversity jurisdiction or other federal issues are present. The Northern District of New York's involvement suggests either diversity of citizenship between the parties or other factors that established federal jurisdiction.
The timeline of this case spans more than a decade, from the original October 2011 incident through the January 2025 district court judgment and the January 2026 appeals court affirmance. Such extended litigation periods are not uncommon in insurance coverage disputes, which can involve complex factual development, extensive discovery, and detailed legal analysis of policy language and applicable law.
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, as a major insurance provider, regularly handles coverage questions arising from incidents involving its policyholders. The company's successful defense of its position in this case demonstrates the importance of thorough legal representation in insurance coverage matters.
For practitioners in insurance law, the case illustrates the procedural pathways available when coverage disputes cannot be resolved through initial claims processes. While this particular decision lacks precedential effect due to its summary order format, it contributes to the body of resolved insurance coverage disputes.
The Second Circuit's efficient resolution of the appeal, concluding with affirmance of the lower court's judgment, brings finality to the dispute between Bunnenberg and Liberty Mutual. The court's assumption of party familiarity with case details reflects the standard practice in summary orders, where appellate courts focus on legal conclusions rather than extensive factual recitation.
With the affirmance now final, the case concludes Liberty Mutual's successful defense of its coverage position in the matter involving Bunnenberg and the insured party McCormack.