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.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 11-20 of 2,027

New York State Court denies motion to compel discovery of reinsurance and reserve information

  • Locke Lord LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 29 2010

In Mt. McKinley Ins. Co. v. Corning Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 20235 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 14, 2010), an insured (“Corning”) moved to compel discovery of reinsurance and reserve information from its insurers, arguing that this information was relevant, material and necessary to its coverage claim

Court denies insurer’s motion to bifurcate breach of contract and bad faith claims

  • Locke Lord LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 6 2013

In Osbourne Renfrow v. Redwood Fire and Casualty Ins. Co., et al., 288 F.R.D. 514 (D. Nev. 2013), the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada

District of Massachusetts finds coverage under a professional liability policy in underlying case centered on unfair competition

  • Locke Lord LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 12 2014

On October 28, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied an insurer's motion for summary judgment in a coverage

A Massachusetts court rejects the use of “usual and customary” medical provider payment data to prove reasonable reimbursement for chiropractic services

  • Locke Lord LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 14 2008

In a recent Massachusetts medical provider fee lawsuit which challenged an insurer’s reimbursement of a non-contracted provider at “usual, customary and reasonable” (“UCR”) rates, an appellate court held that the Ingenix 80th percentile provider payment data introduced by the insurer constituted neither “usual and customary” nor “fair and reasonable” reimbursement to this medical provider

Massachusetts allows terrorism risk exclusions in fire insurance policies

  • Locke Lord LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 4 2011

Massachusetts recently adopted a law, effective April 13, 2011, that permits insurers to exclude coverage in commercial property insurance policies for losses caused directly or indirectly by acts of terrorism

Connecticut Supreme Court determines that the make whole doctrine does not apply to insurance policy deductibles

  • Locke Lord LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 13 2013

The Connecticut Supreme Court, in a much anticipated subrogation decision, recently held that an insurer has priority over a policyholder in the

Revised NAIC insurance holding company model act gains traction

  • Locke Lord LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 6 2012

As part of its solvency modernization initiative, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) adopted broad revisions to its model Insurance Holding Company System Regulatory Act and its Insurance Holding Company System Model Regulation (collectively, the Revised Model Law) in December of 2010

Life insurance beneficiary files putative class action lawsuit against life insurer targeting unclaimed property practices

  • Locke Lord LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 5 2013

A federal class action lawsuit was recently filed in Massachusetts against a leading life insurer targeting claims settlement practices for unclaimed

Take control of litigation with early case assessments

  • Locke Lord LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 7 2013

Despite committing tremendous resources to the defense of coverage, claims and bad faith litigation, many insurers tend to follow a relatively predictable

Connecticut Federal Court: multiple unfair practices in the handling of a single insurance claim do not constitute a “general business practice”

  • Locke Lord LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 7 2009

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut recently granted in part an insurer’s motion to dismiss on the basis that the insured could not prove a violation of the Connecticut Unfair InsuranceTrade Practices Acts because allegations of multiple unfair practices in dealing with a single insurance claim are not sufficient to constitute a "general business practice