Court rules Hartford and Travelers not liable under policy exclusions for company’s product damage claims
NEWARK, NJ – A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Hair Zone Inc., which does business as Sensationnel, against a group of insurance companies including Hartford Fire Insurance Company and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, ruling that the companies are not obligated to cover losses tied to allegedly defective synthetic hair products.
Key Points
- U.S. District Judge Stanley R. Chesler granted motions from both Hartford and Travelers to dismiss Hair Zone’s claims.
- The court ruled that exclusions in the policies clearly barred coverage for damage to the company’s own products.
- Hair Zone’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied in its entirety.
Judge rules insurers acted within contract terms
In a 12-page opinion issued February 26, 2026, Judge Chesler granted motions by both insurance carriers and denied Hair Zone’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. The decision effectively ends the case, which was filed in 2025 in the District of New Jersey under civil action number 25-14960 (SRC).
Hair Zone, a New Jersey-based company that sells synthetic braiding hair, wigs, and weaves, had claimed that its policies with Hartford and Travelers obligated the insurers to defend and indemnify it against product-related claims.
Under its policy with Travelers, the insurer agreed to pay damages the company “becomes legally obligated to pay because of ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage,’” and to defend the company in related suits. However, the policy explicitly excluded coverage for property damage to “your product,” defined as “any goods or products, other than real property, manufactured, sold, handled, distributed or disposed of by [Plaintiff].”
Product exclusion bars Hair Zone’s claims
Judge Chesler found that this exclusion applied directly to Hair Zone’s claims, which centered on losses and damages caused by its own line of hair extensions and related products. Because the alleged harm stemmed from the company’s own goods, the court concluded that the insurers were not contractually required to pay for those damages or defend the company in any related litigation.
The opinion also reaffirmed that the court could take judicial notice of the insurance policies attached to the defendants’ filings, since “they are integral to the complaint as this case is fundamentally a dispute about coverage under the agreements.”
All motions decided against plaintiff
In the ruling, Judge Chesler granted both Travelers’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Hartford’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). He denied Hair Zone’s cross-motion for judgment, finding that the company failed to demonstrate any ambiguity or misapplication of policy terms.
The decision closes Hair Zone’s case unless the company appeals to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Neither Hair Zone nor representatives from the insurers immediately issued public statements regarding the ruling.
Tags: Newark, insurance, federal court
