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 177

Seventh Circuit finds carrier properly denied coverage for waste ash cleanup due to insufficient property description

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 26 2010

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a property must be precisely described for coverage to attach under an environmental liability insurance policy

California Supreme Court applies all sums allocation with stacking of limits

  • Choate Hall & Stewart LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 21 2012

The California Supreme Court applied all sums allocation with stacking of limits in the context of progressive environmental property damage, where the CGL policies at issue required the insurers to pay “all sums” that the insureds became obligated to pay

Three courts address whether administrative agency actions trigger obligations under general liability policies

  • Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 15 2013

There is a substantial body of case law relating to whether various administrative agency actions against a policyholder give rise to an insurer's

Change of legal standard erases insurance verdict

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 1 2013

The First Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a district court decision that vacated a jury verdict awarding insurance coverage to an insured party

Virginia Supreme Court decides first climate change insurance case

  • McCarter & English LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 16 2011

This morning the Virginia Supreme Court decided the first climate change liability insurance coverage case: The AES Corp. v. Steadfast Ins. Co., Record No. 100764

Policy holders in environmental cleanup actions are potentially entitled to multiple policy limits; multiple causes of loss are not a basis to deny coverage

  • Jones Day
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 30 2009

A policyholder defending against a lawsuit for environmental cleanup costs often faces hurdles in obtaining insurance coverage for defense and indemnity of the lawsuit

Federal court disallows third-party insurance claims for environmental costs; Iqbal and Twombly implicated

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 27 2011

A federal court in California recently ruled that an insurance company cannot recover payments made to a policyholder for environmental response costs as a matter of federal law, except in certain limited circumstances

Second Circuit rules that transfer of contaminated fuel oil between containers does not give rise to a “pollution condition”

  • Steptoe & Johnson LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 1 2013

In Colonial Oil Industries Inc. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., No. 12-4063-cv, 2013 US App. LEXIS 12946 (2d Cir. June 25, 2013), the Second Circuit

Pollution exclusion clauses: Wisconsin courts find “septage” to be an excluded pollutant but not “manure”

  • Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 20 2014

Two Wisconsin Court of Appeals panels recently considered whether "manure" and "septage" fall under pollution exclusion clauses of insurance policies

Second Circuit rules that excess insurer may owe indemnity for environmental property damage outside policy periods

  • Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 15 2013

Reversing a New York district court opinion, the Second Circuit ruled that notwithstanding New York's endorsement of pro rata allocation, language in