FOLLOW US

Under Armour is pressing a federal appeals court to reconsider a decision that limits its insurance recovery to $100 million for a cluster of legal troubles that include a securities class action, government investigations, and related shareholder claims.

In a filing this week, the athletic apparel company asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for either a panel rehearing or review by the full court. The company argues that judges misread a negotiated policy endorsement that was intended to resolve exactly when certain claims should be treated as filed for insurance purposes.

At the center of the dispute is directors and officers (D&O) liability coverage spanning multiple policy years. Under Armour maintains that a later endorsement to its 2019 policy explicitly placed claims tied to federal investigations into the 2017–2018 coverage period. That timing matters, since it could unlock an additional $100 million layer of insurance beyond the amount already available.

“The endorsement was not merely a reiteration of prior policy terms,” the company said in its petition. “Rather, it was a settlement that resolved a specific dispute regarding when the government investigation claims were made.”

Appeals Panel Linked All Matters as One Claim

Earlier this year, a three-judge panel concluded that the government probes into the company’s accounting practices were closely connected to a securities lawsuit challenging its public financial disclosures. The court described the matters as logically or causally related, treating them as a single claim.

That interpretation placed all exposure under Under Armour’s 2016–2017 insurance tower, capping available coverage at $100 million. The ruling blocked the company from accessing an additional $100 million under the following year’s policies.

Judges noted that, even though the endorsement referenced the later policy period, it also said claims would remain subject to that policy’s broader terms and conditions. Those provisions included language grouping related matters into one claim, which the panel said controlled the outcome.

Under Armour Says Endorsement Should Control

Under Armour contends the panel gave too much weight to standard policy wording and not enough to the tailored language of the endorsement.

According to the company, the negotiated clause was crafted to settle a disagreement with insurers over timing and should override general terms. It argues that treating the endorsement as secondary strips it of any practical effect.

“Boilerplate language invoking the terms and conditions of the 2017–2018 policy does not override or undo the bespoke provision specifying precisely when the government investigation claims would be deemed made,” the company said.

The sportswear brand also maintains that the ruling conflicts with established contract principles requiring courts to interpret agreements in a way that avoids rendering negotiated provisions meaningless. It added that public policy favors honoring settlements reached between insurers and policyholders.

As an alternative, Under Armour has asked the court to send a key contract question to Maryland’s highest court for guidance.