Ramaco Chubb Verdict: Jury Awards $30 Million in Hayseeds Damages Over a Coal Silo Claim

The Ramaco Chubb verdict is a $30 million award for delay: on 25 September 2026 a federal jury in the Southern District of West Virginia ordered Chubb units Federal Insurance Company and ACE American Insurance Company to pay Ramaco Resources, LLC $27.5 million for net economic loss and $2.5 million for aggravation and inconvenience under West Virginia's Hayseeds doctrine. The award compensates the coal producer for what it lost while its insurers fought a claim over a silo that collapsed in November 2018, and the court still has to decide how much of Ramaco's attorney's fees the insurers must also pay.

The verdict ends a four-day retrial ordered after the Fourth Circuit held in July 2023 that Ramaco had "substantially prevailed" against its insurer and was entitled to Hayseeds damages, but that the first jury's $25 million figure had drifted into punishment. The second jury, working inside that limit, came back with a larger total. For anyone who litigates first-party insurance claims in West Virginia, whether for a homeowner after a fire, a family after a car crash or a company after a plant shutdown, the case shows how much a denied claim can cost an insurer once the policyholder wins on coverage.

How much did the jury award Ramaco against Chubb?

The jury awarded $30.0 million, split between two of the three components of Hayseeds recovery. According to Ramaco Resources, Inc.'s Form 8-K and accompanying press release, the jury found by a preponderance of the evidence that Ramaco LLC should recover:

Component	Amount	Who decides
Net economic loss caused by the delay in settlement	$27,500,000	Jury (25 Sept 2026)
Aggravation and inconvenience	$2,500,000	Jury (25 Sept 2026)
Hayseeds verdict total	$30,000,000
Reasonable attorney's fees	To be determined	Court
Contract damages and pre-verdict interest (from 2021 trial, reinstated 2023)	$7,653,057	Jury (15 July 2021); reinstated by the Fourth Circuit

The court entered judgment for Ramaco LLC and against the two insurers on the same day the jury returned its verdict. Ramaco's disclosure states that attorney's fees "will be determined by the Court." The retrial opened on 22 September 2026 in the Charleston Division and, as Business Insurance reported, the jury returned its verdict on the Friday after four days of trial.

The claim: a silo, a clog and a corrosion exclusion

The underlying loss is modest by comparison with where the litigation ended up. On 5 November 2018 a suspended hopper inside Silo 1, a raw coal storage silo at Ramaco's Elk Creek preparation plant in West Virginia, partially collapsed and shut down operations. Ramaco submitted a claim under a commercial property policy issued by Federal Insurance Company. Employees of ACE American Insurance Company, a sister Chubb company, handled and adjusted the claim.

Federal denied it. Its position was that the hopper failed because of corrosion, and the policy excluded loss caused by rust, oxidation, corrosion or discoloration, by wear and tear or deterioration, and by faulty, inadequate or defective planning, design, materials or maintenance. Ramaco's theory at trial was different: a "coal arch," a clog that forms when coal binds together and blocks the silo's outlet, had overloaded the structure. The first jury accepted Ramaco's account of causation.

Ramaco sued in August 2019, seeking a declaration that the collapse was a covered event and asserting breach of contract, common-law bad faith and claims under the West Virginia Unfair Trade Practices Act. The case was captioned at various points as Ramaco Resources, LLC v. Chubb INA Holdings, Inc. and Ramaco Resources, LLC v. Federal Insurance Co., No. 2:19-cv-00703.

Timeline: eight years from collapse to verdict

Date	Event
5 Nov 2018	Hopper in Silo 1 at Elk Creek partially collapses
Nov 2018 – Mar 2019	Period of restoration later found by the Fourth Circuit; Ramaco incurs about $7.1 million in increased costs and lost contract revenue
Aug 2019	Ramaco sues Federal and ACE in the Southern District of West Virginia
30 June – 16 July 2021	Twelve-day bifurcated trial before Senior Judge John T. Copenhaver Jr.
15 July 2021	Phase one: jury awards $7,653,057 in contract damages and pre-verdict interest
16 July 2021	Phase two: jury awards $25,000,000 in Hayseeds damages for aggravation and inconvenience
2022	Post-trial rulings end the period of restoration on 30 November 2018, cut contract damages and interest to about $1.8 million, reject Hayseeds damages and conditionally grant a new trial on them
20 July 2023	Fourth Circuit (No. 22-1459) reinstates the $7.6 million, holds Ramaco entitled to Hayseeds damages, affirms the conditional new trial
22 Sept 2026	Hayseeds damages retrial opens in Charleston
25 Sept 2026	Jury awards $30.0 million; judgment entered; fees reserved to the court

The first trial produced headlines of a $32.7 million verdict, the sum of the $7.65 million contract figure and the $25 million Hayseeds award. That number never survived. The contract piece came back on appeal; the Hayseeds piece had to be tried again.

What is the Hayseeds doctrine in West Virginia?

The Hayseeds doctrine is a West Virginia rule that makes an insurer pay the policyholder's litigation costs and delay losses whenever the policyholder has to sue on a first-party property claim and substantially prevails. It comes from Hayseeds, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty, 177 W. Va. 323, 352 S.E.2d 73 (1986), a case about a restaurant that burned down and an insurer that refused to pay on an arson theory. The jury in Hayseeds returned $150,000 on the policy itself, $69,000 for attorney's fees and consequential damages, and $50,000 in punitive damages.

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that when a policyholder substantially prevails in a property damage suit against its own insurer, the insurer is liable for three things beyond the policy benefits:

1. the insured's reasonable attorney's fees in vindicating the claim;
2. the insured's damages for net economic loss caused by the delay in settlement; and
3. damages for aggravation and inconvenience.

The doctrine is a form of Fee Shifting that does not require any showing of bad faith. The policyholder does not have to prove the insurer acted unreasonably, only that it had to sue and won substantially what it asked for. That is what makes it powerful and what distinguishes it from the separate claims a policyholder can bring for common-law bad faith or under the Unfair Trade Practices Act, W. Va. Code § 33-11-4(9).

Punitive Damages sit on a different track. Hayseeds itself held that an insurer is not liable for punitive damages for refusing to pay a property claim "unless such refusal is accompanied by a malicious intention to injure or defraud." Later decisions define that "actual malice" as an insurer that actually knew the policyholder's claim was proper but "willfully, maliciously and intentionally" denied it. Hayseeds damages are compensatory; punitive damages require a much higher showing. The Ramaco litigation turned on keeping those two categories apart.

What does "substantially prevail" mean under West Virginia insurance law?

A policyholder substantially prevails when it recovers, by settlement or verdict, an amount equal to or approximating what it demanded immediately before filing suit. That is the test the Supreme Court of Appeals set in Miller v. Fluharty, 201 W. Va. 685, 500 S.E.2d 310 (1997). The comparison point is the last pre-suit demand, not the figure pleaded in the complaint or argued at trial, which is why careful demand letters matter so much in West Virginia practice.

In Ramaco's case, the question was answered in 2023. The Fourth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Julius N. Richardson, wrote that "Ramaco 'substantially prevailed' against its insurer, so it is entitled to Hayseeds damages." Once the $7.6 million contract award was reinstated, the district court's reduction of that award could no longer support any argument that Ramaco had won only a fraction of its claim.

Why did the Fourth Circuit order a new trial on Hayseeds damages?

The Fourth Circuit ordered a new trial because the first jury's $25 million award for aggravation and inconvenience could not be explained as compensation. After the 2021 verdict, the district court had rejected Hayseeds damages entirely as a matter of state law and, in the alternative, conditionally granted a new trial on the ground that the $25 million figure was punitive. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed the wholesale rejection but affirmed the conditional new trial. In Judge Richardson's words, "a Hayseeds award cannot include punitive damages. So the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial on Hayseeds damages."

Two features of the first award made it vulnerable. It was entirely aggravation and inconvenience, a category built for the frustration of an individual policyholder, awarded to a corporate insured on what the panel regarded as limited evidence. And it was more than three times the contract damages. The second jury's award looks structurally different: about 92 percent of it, $27.5 million, is net economic loss, the category designed to measure what a business actually loses when an insurer withholds money it owes, and only $2.5 million is aggravation and inconvenience.

The same 2023 opinion also resolved the contract dispute. The policy covered business income and extra expense through a "period of restoration," and the district court had cut that period off on 30 November 2018. The Fourth Circuit read the policy's plain language to run the period until operations were restored to the level of net profit that would have existed without the collapse, which it placed between November 2018 and March 2019, and reinstated the jury's $7,653,057 award.

Is the $30 million on top of the $7.6 million contract award?

Yes, as the pieces of the case fit together, the $30 million Hayseeds award and the $7.65 million contract award are separate components of recovery. The Fourth Circuit reinstated the contract damages and pre-verdict interest in 2023 and sent only the Hayseeds damages back for a new trial; the 2026 jury decided only Hayseeds net economic loss and aggravation and inconvenience. Ramaco's own 8-K speaks only to the $30 million and the pending fee determination, and does not state whether or when the contract award was paid, so the final dollar figure the insurers owe, including fees and any post-judgment interest, is not yet public.

Why is the delay award so much larger than the policy benefits? Because net economic loss under Hayseeds is measured by the consequences of the delay in payment, not by the policy limit. Ramaco's contract loss was fixed in a five-month restoration window in 2018 and 2019. The delay ran from the denial through the 2021 trial, a two-year appeal and three more years to retrial. The jury's figure is the price it put on that time for a coal company deprived of funds it was owed. Precisely how the $27.5 million was calculated, and which of Ramaco's losses the jury credited, is not disclosed in the public filings and reporting available so far.

How are attorney's fees calculated under Hayseeds?

Under Jordan v. National Grange Mutual Insurance Co. (W. Va. 1990), reasonable attorney's fees in a Hayseeds case are presumptively one-third of the face amount of the policy, "unless the policy is either extremely small or enormously large." The court tied that presumption to the reality that most first-party coverage cases are handled on a Contingency Fee and that the standard contingent fee is about 33 percent.

The Ramaco fee ruling will test how well that presumption fits a commercial claim. A commercial property policy protecting a coal preparation plant may carry limits far larger than the loss in dispute, which could put it in the "enormously large" category where the one-third rule gives way. In that event, the court would fall back on a reasonableness analysis, typically considering hours, rates, the novelty of the issues, the results obtained and the risk counsel carried across two trials and an appeal. Whatever number emerges will be added to the $30 million judgment and the reinstated contract award.

Hayseeds element	Standard	Ramaco result
Threshold	Policyholder substantially prevails (Miller v. Fluharty)	Established by Fourth Circuit, 2023
Net economic loss	Losses caused by delay in settlement	$27.5 million (2026 jury)
Aggravation and inconvenience	Compensatory, not punitive	$2.5 million (2026 jury); $25 million in 2021 set aside
Attorney's fees	Presumptively one-third of face amount (Jordan) unless policy extremely small or enormously large	Pending before the court
Punitive damages	Separate; requires actual malice	Not part of the 2026 verdict

Does the Hayseeds doctrine apply to businesses and commercial policies?

The Ramaco case confirms that Hayseeds damages are available to a business policyholder under a first-party commercial property policy: the Fourth Circuit held that an LLC coal producer was entitled to them, and a jury has now awarded them. What remains contested is the boundary on the liability side. In Bristol Springs Custom Homes, LLC v. Argo Group US, Inc., No. 25-1070, a West Virginia homebuilder that said its liability insurer's coverage position pushed it into bankruptcy asked the Fourth Circuit to apply Hayseeds to a third-party general liability policy; the insurers argued the doctrine has never been extended that far. The Fourth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion in 2026, so that decision does not bind future panels, and the question of Hayseeds in liability coverage has not been resolved by the Supreme Court of Appeals.

Can Chubb appeal the Ramaco verdict?

Federal and ACE can file post-trial motions in the district court and then appeal to the Fourth Circuit once the fee determination makes the judgment final for all purposes. Several issues are foreseeable. The insurers could argue again that the verdict contains a punitive element, this time aimed at the net economic loss figure; they could challenge the evidence of causation between the delay and the claimed losses; and they could contest the fee award. The one argument largely closed to them is that Hayseeds does not apply at all, because the Fourth Circuit's 2023 holding that Ramaco substantially prevailed and is entitled to Hayseeds damages is the law of the case. No public statement from Chubb on an appeal was found in reporting on the verdict through 28 September 2026.

What it means for policyholder counsel, insurers, PI firms and funders

For policyholder and personal injury counsel. Hayseeds is the most important fee-shifting tool in West Virginia first-party practice, and Ramaco shows it scales. The same doctrine that pays a homeowner's lawyer after a fire claim, or a car owner's lawyer after a disputed collision-damage claim, produced an eight-figure award for a corporate plaintiff. The lesson from the first trial is that aggravation and inconvenience must be supported by evidence of actual disruption, and that the economic-loss category is where a business claim's value should sit. Demand letters that clearly state the pre-suit number remain essential, because Miller v. Fluharty measures success against it.

For insurers and coverage defense counsel. In West Virginia, the cost of losing a coverage dispute is not capped at the policy benefit plus interest. Every year of litigation after a denial adds to the exposure for net economic loss, and a win on the first appeal may simply reset the case for a second trial rather than end it. Reserve-setting and settlement evaluation for West Virginia property claims should account for delay damages and fees as a separate line, distinct from any bad faith or punitive exposure.

For litigation funders. The case illustrates why first-party coverage disputes with fee-shifting rules attract Third-Party Litigation Funding: a claim worth $7.65 million in contract damages has so far produced a judgment several times larger, but only after eight years. The time value of money and appellate risk shaped this case's economics as much as the underlying loss.

For courts and the bar. The Fourth Circuit's 2023 opinion and the 2026 verdict together offer a working template for separating compensatory Hayseeds damages from punitive damages: a punitive-looking figure is not grounds to strip the doctrine away entirely, but it is grounds to retry the amount.

FAQ

How much did the jury award Ramaco against Chubb?

$30.0 million: $27.5 million for net economic loss caused by the insurers' delay and $2.5 million for aggravation and inconvenience, returned on 25 September 2026 in the Southern District of West Virginia against Federal Insurance Company and ACE American Insurance Company.

What is the Hayseeds doctrine?

It is a West Virginia rule from Hayseeds, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty (1986) that makes an insurer pay a policyholder's reasonable attorney's fees, net economic loss from delay and damages for aggravation and inconvenience whenever the policyholder sues on a property claim and substantially prevails, with no need to prove bad faith.

Why was there a second trial?

The Fourth Circuit held in July 2023 that Ramaco was entitled to Hayseeds damages but that the first jury's $25 million award was partly punitive, which Hayseeds does not allow, so it affirmed the district court's conditional order for a new trial on the amount.

Does the $30 million include attorney's fees?

No. Fees were not submitted to the jury and will be set by the court. West Virginia presumes a fee of one-third of the policy's face amount unless the policy is extremely small or enormously large.

Is this a punitive damages award?

No. The 2026 verdict covers only compensatory Hayseeds categories. Punitive damages against an insurer in West Virginia require proof of actual malice, meaning the insurer knew the claim was proper and willfully, maliciously and intentionally denied it.

Can Chubb still appeal?

Yes. Federal and ACE can pursue post-trial motions and an appeal to the Fourth Circuit, but the 2023 holding that Ramaco substantially prevailed and is entitled to Hayseeds damages is the law of the case, so any appeal is likely to focus on the amount, the evidence and the fee award.