We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Results 1 to 5 of 11
Most popular |Most recent


Why more restaurants should purchase cyberinsurance

USA - May 21 2015 Restaurants face a cybersecurity threat that is pervasive and alarming. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, the Dairy Queen and Jimmy John's are just a few of...

J. Wylie Donald.


Court denied motion to strike CUIPA claim where insured alleged similar misconduct against another policyholder.

USA - February 8 2011 In Union Street Furniture & Carpet, Inc. v. Peerless Indemnity Insurance Co., 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1848 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 15, 2010), the insured brought action against its insurer after the insurer declined coverage for a loss resulting from a leaking roof and water damage....

Joseph J. Cherico.


Court discussed the meaning of the term “collapse” and employed the discovery rule with regard to a time limitation in the policy

USA - February 7 2011 Homeowners brought this action alleging that their insurer breached an insurance contract by denying coverage for damage to their basement walls....

Joseph J. Cherico.


Court denied insurer’s summary judgment motion concerning coverage owed under a crime insurance policy for a loss involving computer fraud

USA - February 7 2011 In Owens, Schine & Nicola, P.C. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America, 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2386 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 17, 2010), the insured (a law firm) brought a coverage action against its insurer after the insurer declined coverage under a crime insurance policy for a loss that resulted from the insured’s representation of a foreign client allegedly involved in a collection action....

Joseph J. Cherico.


Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Association (CIGA”) is immune from sanctions imposed by a Workers’ Compensation Commissioner for the undue delay in processing a claim and such sanctions are not included in the Guaranty Act’s definition of “covered claim.”

USA - February 7 2011 In Potvin v. Lincoln Service & Equipment Co., 298 Conn. 620, 2010 Conn. LEXIS 374 (2010), the defendant Guaranty Fund Management Service appealed the decision of the Compensation Review Board (“Board”), which upheld a workers’ compensation commissioner’s imposition of sanctions against the Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Association (“CIGA”), including the order to pay attorneys’ fees, for undue delay in processing a claim by the plaintiff on behalf of an insolvent insurer pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act and the Connecticut Insurance Guaranty Association Act, C.G.S. 38a-836 et seq. (“Guaranty Act”)....

Joseph J. Cherico.