Conclusion: The Fight for Contract Certainty. Find out more about Property manager sues QBE over claim aggregation.

The legal community awaits the carrier’s formal defense, which will reveal the core legal theory QBE intends to rely upon to justify capping coverage for what the plaintiff maintains are two entirely separate failures of professional duty. What is clear today, January 22, 2026, is the lesson: contractual certainty is paramount. The developments in the *Cardinal v. QBE* case carry far more weight than just one company’s immediate financial standing. They are defining how the entire structure of liability limits will be enforced in the years to come, particularly in high-frequency operational fields like property management. If the court accepts QBE’s aggregation theory, it signals a significant shift toward the insurer’s view of systemic risk management, potentially leaving policyholders dangerously exposed by underestimating the cost of defense and the erosion of their own coverage limits. The message is ringing loud and clear from the Colorado District Court: review your policy’s aggregation clause now, or risk having your two separate claims treated as one very expensive accident. What is your firm doing to ensure your policy limits are separate and distinct for separate, time-separated claims? Share your current policy review strategies in the comments below.