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 286

Circular letter regarding contract certainty issued for comment by the New York Insurance Department

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 14 2010

The New York Insurance Department (the “Department”) recently issued a draft Supplement No. 1 to Circular Letter No. 20 (2008) (“CL No. 20”) regarding insurance contract certainty for propertycasualty insurance policies and reinsurance contracts

NY lower court holds that Insurance Law 3420(a) applies to lawyer’s claims-made malpractice policy

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 19 2009

The New York Supreme Court, Erie County, recently held that a lawyers’ professional liability policy constitutes a "policy or contract insuring against liability for injury to person" within the meaning of Insurance Law 3420(a)(3)-(4

New York State Court denies motion to compel discovery of reinsurance and reserve information

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 29 2010

In Mt. McKinley Ins. Co. v. Corning Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 20235 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 14, 2010), an insured (“Corning”) moved to compel discovery of reinsurance and reserve information from its insurers, arguing that this information was relevant, material and necessary to its coverage claim

Second Circuit: distinguishing between policy definitions subject to NY Insurance Law 3420(d)(2)’s timely disclaimer requirement as an exclusion and those that are not

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 16 2010

In a decision issued on February 1, 2010, the United Stated Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit confirmed that under New York law some policy provisions, although placed outside of the policy's "Exclusions" section, may nonetheless be considered an exclusion and, therefore, subject to the timely disclaimer and denial requirement of NY Insurance Law 3420(d)(2

NY court: insured may recover consequential damages absent insurer bad faith

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 23 2009

On December 15, 2009, New York's Appellate Division for the First Department held that an insured need not allege or prove that its insurer acted in bad faith in order to recover consequential damages stemming from the insurer's breach of the policy

Federal court in Ohio recognizes cause of action for insurer bad faith outside claim handling context

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 8 2010

"Although Ohio courts have generally found independent tort liability only in cases of improper processing and handling of claims," the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio held that a claim predicated on an insurer’s failure to refund unearmed premiums can support an independent claim for bad faith

West Virginia Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination by insurer in the settlement of property claim

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 12 2010

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia concluded that the West Virginia Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination by an insurer in the settlement of a property claim

Last week in DC: the healthcare reform debate March 29, 2010

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 29 2010

Healthcare reform's long and often bumpy journey through Congress came to a close last week, as President Obama signed into law the 2,000 page legislation that will overhaul the nation's healthcare system

California federal court rules that “insured v. insured” exclusion does not preclude insurer’s payments of defense costs in claim brought jointly by insureds and non-insureds

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 1 2009

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, applying California law, has held that an “insured v. insured” clause exclusion in a D&O policy for claims asserted by an insured against an insured did not preclude the insurer from paying for the entire defense costs incurred by insured and non-insured claimants

Eleventh Circuit upholds that D&O policy does not provide coverage for claims arising out of property damage under Florida law

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 22 2010

In an unpublished opinion, the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the trial court's decision that a D&O policy does not provide coverage for third-party property damage claims