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: 11-20 of 201

Illinois court addresses distinction between claim and potential claim

  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 10 2013

In its recent decision in Lexington Ins. Co. v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127544 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 4, 2013), the United States

Prior litigation exclusion upheld by Washington court

  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 30 2011

Application of "pending or prior litigation" exclusions are generally fact-intensive inquiries that have generated a significant amount of litigation

Texas appellate court enforces appraisal provision

  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 26 2013

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals of Texas for the Fourteenth District revisited the scope of the appraisal process in light of the prior

New Jersey Federal Court expands estoppel rule to inter-insurer disputes

  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 15 2011

In the recently decided case captioned Mazzoli v. Marina District Development Co., LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39116 (D.N.J. Apr. 11, 2011), the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey had occasion to consider New Jersey’s so-called “Eggleston rule” in the context of an inter-insurer dispute

California federal court holds unintentional conversion not an occurrence

  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 27 2012

In its recent decision in Alco Iron & Metal Co. v. American International Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166692 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2012), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California had occasion to consider whether an insured’s intentional acts that result in unintentional harms can be considered an “occurrence” for the purpose of a general liability policy

New York Court addresses late notice as between co-insurers

  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 8 2011

The decision by the New York Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, in Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau, 871 N.Y.S.2d 48 (N.Y. 1st Dep’t 2008), was a decision of particular note for its discussion of whether the insured’s underlying asbestos liabilities implicated its productscompleted operations coverage, or its ongoing operations coverage

New York court holds claimants had no standing to sue professional liability insurer

  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 25 2014

In its recent decision in Commonwealth Land Title Ins Co. v. American Signature Services, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22172 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2014

Florida court allows extrinsic facts for determining duty to defend

  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 16 2012

In its recent decision in Composite Structures, Inc. v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147320 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 12, 2012), the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida considered if and when an insurer can rely on facts extrinsic to a complaint for the purpose of determining a duty to defend

Florida court holds contract claim does not trigger E&O policy

  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 22 2013

In its recent decision in Public Risk Mgmt. of Fla. v. One Beacon Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150091 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 18, 2013), the United States

Massachusetts court holds fee dispute not covered under E&O policy

  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 7 2011

The recent decision by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Clermont v. Continental Casualty Co., 2011 U.S Dist. LEXIS 32850 (D.Mass. Mar. 29, 2011) provides an interesting and illustrative study of the limits of coverage under a lawyer’s malpractice policy, in particular, what types of disputes arise out of an attorney’s “professional services.”