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: 1-6 of 6

Guidance on seeking coverage for environmental liabilities provided in recent opinion

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 11 2014

In a recent opinion, the Indiana Court of Appeals examined and provided significant analyses of a number of fundamental concepts in insurance law

Indiana Court of Appeals issues opinion providing guidance on seeking coverage for environmental liabilities

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 9 2014

In a recent opinion, the Indiana Court of Appeals examined and provided significant analyses of a number of fundamental concepts in insurance law

The pollution exclusion is brought back to the Indiana Supreme Court

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 10 2011

The salient issue in State Automobile Insurance Company v. Flexdar, Inc., a case in which the Indiana Supreme Court heard oral argument on May 5, 2011, is the enforceability of pollution exclusion clauses in commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policies

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

The modified pollution exclusion remains ambiguous and unenforceable under Indiana law

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 7 2010

In an insurance coverage dispute involving the interpretation of the modified pollution exclusion, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that it is ambiguous and unenforceable

A tale of two courts and ambiguity in the pollution exclusion

  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 3 2010

In a related pair of decisions, two courts, presented with precisely identical facts, issue wholly contrary rulings