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.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 11-20 of 41

First Circuit: no coverage for false arrest suit where arrest and conviction occurred prior to the policy period

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 4 2009

The First Circuit recently upheld a trial court’s ruling that an insurer need not defend or indemnify the defendants in a wrongful conviction claim where the wrongful acts occurred prior to the policy period

First Circuit: no coverage under claims made and reported policy if insured fails to report claim within policy period

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 29 2009

The First Circuit recently held that an insured was not entitled to coverage under a Professional Liability claims made and reported policy where the claim is not both made against the insured and reported to the insurer within the policy period

California appellate court applies government contractor immunity defense to boilers on naval vessels in asbestos-related decision

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 24 2009

Earlier this month, a California appellate court held that the government contractor immunity defense applies to a boiler manufactured to United States Navy specifications, shielding the manufacturer from a design defect claim

New York appellate court: claims against manufacturer of ear protectors

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 29 2009

Earlier this month, a New York appellate court held that claims against the manufacturer of protective devices for ears were barred by the three-year statute of limitations governing actions to recover damages for personal injury

Court finds that New York law governs reinsurance agreement, denies insured’s statutory claim for punitive damages and penalties against reinsurer

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 6 2009

Plaintiff Callon Petroleum Company ("Callon") commenced an action against National Indemnity Company ("NICO") to recover for a judgment Callon obtained against NICO’s cedent, Frontier Insurance Company ("Frontier"

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reverses summary judgment and holds against insurer in bad faith action related to uninsured motorist claim

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 27 2009

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed an award of summary judgment that had been in favor of an insurer in a bad faith action regarding an uninsured motorist claim, and found against the insurer

Reinsurer’s motion to seal documents related to arbitration granted by Pennsylvania court

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 27 2009

Republic Western Insurance Company ("Republic") reinsured certain workers’ compensation policies issued by Reliance Insurance Company

Connecticut Supreme Court finds automobile insurance policy language ambiguous

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 3 2009

The Connecticut Supreme Court recently reversed a judgment that had been in favor of an automobile insurer in a breach of contract action brought by glass repair companies who had been assigned the rights of the defendant’s insureds

Federal court orders insurer to produce information about its reinsurance agreements

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 2 2009

Mechanical Dynamics & Analysis, LLC ("MD&A") performed repairs on a generator at a power plant owned by the Arizona Public Service Company ("APS"

The Eleventh Circuit finds subject matter jurisdiction over “F-Cubed” plaintiffs

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 4 2009

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has found that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over securities claims brought by “F-Cubed” plaintiffs i.e., a foreign investors who purchased shares in a foreign company on a foreign stock exchange