Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 61

Judgment creditor collaterally estopped by default judgment against insured

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
May 20 2013

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, applying Georgia law, has held that a default judgment against an insured in a

Controlling shareholder’s bankruptcy does not render entity insolvent; fraud claim uninsurable as a matter of law

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
April 9 2013

Applying Minnesota law, a federal district court has held that, where an entity's principal shareholder was insolvent, but the entity was not, the

Claimant may use Connecticut direct action statute to sue carrier after compromising claim with policyholder

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
April 9 2013

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut has held that a settlement agreement between the claimant and policyholder satisfies

Federal court exercises jurisdiction over insurer’s declaratory judgment action arising out of FDIC demand

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
December 17 2012

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, applying California law, has concluded that it should exercise jurisdiction under the federal Declaratory Judgment Act to determine the availability of coverage for a written demand and has held that the related coverage action should not be stayed in favor of potential future underlying litigation between the Federal Deposition Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the insureds because the outcome of the coverage litigation would not be dependent on resolution of disputed facts in such a future action

Settlement agreement extends to later claims covered by scope of release

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
November 12 2012

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, applying Texas law, has held that a settlement agreement resolving coverage litigation released the insurer’s obligation for defense costs for certain claims tendered for coverage under a subsequent policy

Priority of payments provision allows insurer to make settlement payments on covered claims against directors and officers

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
October 25 2012

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nebraska has held that an insurer may make settlement payments for claims against a debtor’s directors and officers where any claims of the debtor are subordinate to those of the directors and officers under the terms of the policy

Georgia bankruptcy court: FDIC may sue officer of failed bank, notwithstanding his bankruptcy, if defense and recovery limited to D&O insurance

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
August 28 2012

A Georgia bankruptcy court has held that notwithstanding the discharge of an individual in his individual bankruptcy proceeding, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) may file suit against the individual as a former officer of a failed bank so long as the applicable D&O policy covers defense costs and the FDIC’s recovery is limited to insurance proceeds

Claims for restitutionary relief held uninsurable

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
July 30 2012

The United States District Court for the Central District of California has held that, under California law, claims for restitutionary relief are uninsurable as a matter of law

Trustees have no standing to object to disbursement of policy proceeds in interpleader action

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
July 20 2012

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, applying federal law, has held that a Liquidation Trustee and a Litigation Trustee (the Trustees) did not have standing to object to the disbursal of policy proceeds in an insurer’s interpleader action because they had no existing claims or realistic potential claims for coverage under the policy

Policy voided where insured concealed operation of Ponzi scheme and misrepresented financial status

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
June 19 2012

Applying Georgia law, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia has voided a surplus lines policy on the grounds that the insured, a purported hedge fund management firm, concealed that it was operating a Ponzi scheme, submitted an inaccurate financial statement, and misrepresented that its investment funds were “stable.”