Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 11-20 of 60

I-v-I exclusion held not to preclude coverage for claims brought by chapter 7 trustee

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
March 23 2012

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana has held that an insured versus insured exclusion does not apply to preclude coverage for claims brought by a duly appointed bankruptcy trustee against an insolvent corporation’s directors and officers

Insolvency exclusion bars coverage for claims due to underfunded employee benefit plans

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
December 7 2011

A federal district court, applying Pennsylvania law, has held that the insolvency exclusion in an insurance agency’s professional liability policy excused the insurer from the duty to defend the agency in lawsuits alleging that it had caused employee benefit plans that it created to be underfunded

Fraudulent conduct of principals imputed to company, barring coverage

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
October 11 2011

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, applying Ohio law, has held that a dishonesty exclusion barred coverage under primary and excess directors and officers policies for the Wrongful Acts of the principals of a bankrupt company, all of whom were criminally convicted of securities fraud and related crimes

Insured versus insured exclusion inapplicable to action by bankruptcy trustee, and bankruptcy exclusion deemed unenforceable

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
August 8 2011

An Illinois appellate court, applying Indiana and federal law, has held that neither a bankruptcy exclusion nor an insured versus insured exclusion applied to bar coverage for claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee

Insured versus insured exclusion inapplicable to action by bankruptcy trustee and bankruptcy exclusion deemed unenforceable

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
July 28 2011

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division, applying Indiana and federal law, has held that neither a bankruptcy nor an insured versus insured exclusion applied to bar coverage for claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee

District court withdraws reference to the bankruptcy court of non-core coverage actions

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
July 14 2011

The United States District Court for the Central District of California has granted motions by eight directors and officers liability insurers to withdraw the reference to the bankruptcy court of two coverage actions involving coverage for claims against former directors and officers of a bank holding company

Professional liability policy proceeds not property of bankruptcy estates

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
June 23 2011

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada has held that proceeds from a professional liability policy were not property of the insured-debtors' bankruptcy estate because the proceeds were payable only for the benefit of third party claimants and could not be accessed by the debtors directly

Court grants objection to interrogatory seeking information about other insureds' claims, denies objection regarding other claims noticed by the insured's affiliates

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
May 20 2011

A United States Magistrate Judge in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina has denied a motion to compel discovery of all claims for which the insurer had denied coverage based on the desire of an insolvent insured to forfeit coverage

Insurer entitled to reimbursement of defense costs but only for amounts advanced prior to rescission

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
April 13 2011

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, applying California law, has granted summary judgment in favor of a bankruptcy plan administrator for the estate of an insured, holding that the plan administrator is entitled to recover premiums paid to an insurer after the insurer rescinded the policy

Insolvency exclusion bars coverage for allegations that actuarial services firm contributed to client's insolvency

Wiley Rein LLP
-
USA
-
April 1 2011

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held, under California law, that an insurer had no duty to defend an insured actuarial services firm in litigation alleging that the insured's reserve reviews and rate level recommendations contributed to the insolvency of a medical malpractice self-insurance fund