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: 1-10 of 208

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

New Jersey appellate court holds D&O policy pollution exclusion inapplicable

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 28 2008

A New Jersey intermediate court of appeals has held that the pollution exclusion in a D&O insurance policy did not bar coverage for a securities fraud action alleging that the insured corporation had misrepresented its contingent liabilities for asbestos-related claims retained by a spun-off subsidiary

District court judge confirms summary judgment victory for policyholder regarding the duty to defend and the pollution exclusion

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 2 2013

In January, we reported on developments in Wiseman Oil Co. v. TIG Insurance, a case pending in the United States District Court for the Western

Second Circuit canvases case law, upholds pollution exclusion

  • Steptoe & Johnson LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 13 2013

In Emerson Enterprises, LLC v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. et al., No. 12-4287-CV, 2013 WL 4753564 (2d Cir. Sept. 5, 2013), the Second

Sudden and accidental pollution in Massachusets not always fatal to coverage

  • Foley Hoag LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 22 2013

In some jurisdictions, an environmental claim under a liability policy with a "sudden and accidental" pollution exclusion has the same prospect of

Storm clouds gathering: potential insurance consequences of climate change litigation

  • Sidley Austin LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 4 2010

In recent years, global warming has become a lightning rod for national thought and debate

Alabama Supreme Court holds PRP letter triggers duty to defend

  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 3 2013

In its recent decision in Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ala. Gas Corp., 2012 Ala. LEXIS 174 (Ala. Dec. 28, 2012), the Supreme Court of Alabama addressed

California Supreme Court issues sweeping pro-policyholder decision on environmental liability coverage issues

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 10 2009

On March 9, 2009, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in State of California v. Allstate Insurance Co., Case No. S149988

PRP letter triggered coveragebut delay precludes claim against insurers

  • Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 18 2013

A letter sent by the EPA in 2001 pursuant to CERCLA warning Land O'Lakes that it could be a potentially responsible party ("PRP") for cleanup of an

Ninth Circuit CERCLA subrogation ruling stands after Supreme Court cert denial

  • Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 30 2014

Last year the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a noteworthy decision addressing the subrogation rights of insurers under the federal