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.
The decision we've all been waiting for is in -- the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the statute commonly known as the individual insurance mandate (everyone must have minimum health insurance coverage or pay a pentalty) is constitutional under Congress' taxing power
A federal district court, applying Pennsylvania law, has held that the insolvency exclusion in an insurance agency’s professional liability policy excused the insurer from the duty to defend the agency in lawsuits alleging that it had caused employee benefit plans that it created to be underfunded
In its recent decision ACE Capital Ltd. v. Morgan Waldon Ins. Mgmt., LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135902 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 28, 2011), the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania had occasion to consider the scope of an insolvency exclusion in a professional liability policy
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, applying Florida law, has held that exclusions for claims involving the receivership of a healthcare benefit plan and claims involving Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements (MEWA) barred coverage for claims brought by a receiver of a healthcare benefit plan alleging that brokers sold coverage under a benefit plan that was a MEWA
