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.
