Search results
Order by most recent / most popular / relevance
Results: 1-10 of 12
PRP letter triggers insurer's duty to defend
- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- January 7 2013
One of your most valuable rights under an insurance policy is having your insurance company defend you from a covered claim, no matter how frivolous. This
Using insurance to pay for environmental cleanups: California approves all sums with stacking
- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- August 21 2012
In a case of first impression, the California Supreme Court approved the stacking of excess insurance policies in the continuous property loss scenario typical of environmental contamination and toxic tort litigation, thus issuing a sweeping insurance coverage opinion in favor of policy holders in California v. Continental Ins. Co., 2012 WL 3206561 (Aug. 9, 2012
Indiana Supreme Court requires insurers to pay for environmental cleanup
- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- March 22 2012
The Indiana Supreme Court issued its opinion in State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. v. Flexdar, Inc. on March 22, 2012
The pollution exclusion is brought back to the Indiana Supreme Court
- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- May 10 2011
The salient issue in State Automobile Insurance Company v. Flexdar, Inc., a case in which the Indiana Supreme Court heard oral argument on May 5, 2011, is the enforceability of pollution exclusion clauses in commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policies
Insurers uphill fight on coverage in Indiana
- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- April 6 2011
In a recent decision, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals provided insurance companies doing business in Indiana with guidance on how to draft pollution exclusion clausesprovisions typically included in commercial general liability ("CGL") policies that seek to exclude coverage for claims based on environmental contamination
Has the Ohio Supreme Court opened the door for insurance coverage for pollution claims?
- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- January 12 2011
On December 30, 2010, the Ohio Supreme Court ended its calendar year with a decision which, on its face, appeared to have limited application to insurance coverage when pranks are committed which result in serious injuries
Indiana Supreme Court rules insurance policies are to be interpreted under single state law and declines to revisit its rejection of the pollution exclusion
- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- January 12 2011
On December 30, 2010, the Indiana Supreme Court issued its opinion in Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Standard Fusee Corp., Case No. 49S04-1006-CV, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. 2010), and held that Indiana courts are to interpret insurance policies under the law of a single state, regardless of whether the insured has multiple sites in multiple states
Indiana Court of Appeals clarifies landlord liability for toxic torts
- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- December 7 2010
On November 24, 2010, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in Neal v. Cure
The modified pollution exclusion remains ambiguous and unenforceable under Indiana law
- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- December 7 2010
In an insurance coverage dispute involving the interpretation of the modified pollution exclusion, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that it is ambiguous and unenforceable
A tale of two courts and ambiguity in the pollution exclusion
- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- November 3 2010
In a related pair of decisions, two courts, presented with precisely identical facts, issue wholly contrary rulings
Current Search
- Jurisdiction - USA
- Workarea - Environment
- Workarea - Litigation
- Workarea - Insurance & Reinsurance
- Firm Name - Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Suggested Facets
Author
- Bradley R. Sugarman (4)
- David L. Guevara (4)
- Kim K. Burke (1)
- Lawrence A. Vanore (1)
- Michael D. Chambers (1)
- Thomas F. O'Gara (1)
- William C. Wagner (2)