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.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Seth D. Lamden Neal Gerber & Eisenberg LLP

Results 1 to 5 of 11



UK insurer barred from enforcing mandatory arbitration provision in coverage dispute with Missouri insured *

USA - April 18 2013
In Union Electric Co. v. AEGIS Energy Syndicate 1225, No. 12-3546 (8th Cir. April 19, 2013), the court held that a UK insurer was precluded from…


Missouri court applies “all sums” allocation to long-tail environmental coverage dispute *

USA - April 15 2013
The court in Doe Run Resources Corporation v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, No. ED98086, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 468 (April 16, 2013), held…


Policy provision does not eliminate duty to defend uncovered counts in mixed action *

USA - September 27 2012
In Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., No., 09-C-7063, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66595 (N.D. Ill. May 11, 2012), the court held that a provision in a title insurance policy stating that the insurer was only obligated to defend “stated causes of action alleging . . . matter insured against by this policy” did not relieve the insurer of providing a full defense to a multi-count complaint against its insured that alleged covered and uncovered counts because under Illinois law, an insurer with a duty to defend may not “contract around” its obligation to provide a complete defense to all counts in a complaint alleging a potentially covered claim.


Reasonable attorney fees not defined by insurer’s billing guidelines *

USA - September 24 2012
In June 2012, the Northern District of Illinois entered partial judgment in favor of an insured against its insurer for unpaid defense expenses.


Statutory damages constitute covered loss under professional liability policy *

USA - August 7 2012
The court in Flagship Credit Corp. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., No. 11-20408, 2012 WL 2299484 (5th Cir. June 15, 2012), held that statutory minimum damages for violations of the Texas Business and Commerce Code were not “penalties” and, therefore, constituted covered “loss” under a professional liability policy issued to an automobile financing company.


Next »