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: 1-7 of 7

Policyholders’ ability to obtain insurance coverage for cleanups and other liabilities relating to accidental pollution in Pennsylvania is greatly enhanced

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 14 2008

On March 10, 2008, in a case in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Simon Wrecking Company, Inc., et al. v. Continental Casualty Company, et al., the Honorable Anita B. Brody issued a decision describing the proof needed by a policyholder with pollution-related liabilities to prevent its insurance company from denying responsibility based on the so-called “sudden and accidental” pollution exclusion

Whether negligence of broker causative of avoidance of policy

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • April 30 2010

In the case of Jones v Environcom 2010 EWHC 759 (Comm), the defendants were engaged in the business of recycling electrical goods waste, including refrigerators

California Supreme Court issues sweeping pro-policyholder decision on environmental liability coverage issues

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 10 2009

On March 9, 2009, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in State of California v. Allstate Insurance Co., Case No. S149988

Another win for Pennsylvania policyholders concerning the duty to defend and the pollution exclusion

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 6 2013

Policyholders with pollution-related liabilities in Pennsylvania scored another win in January, in the ongoing litigation battle with insurance

In Virginia, insurer not liable for global warming claims

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 21 2011

In AES Corp. v. Steadfast Insurance Co. (AES), 2011 WL 4139736 (September 16, 2011), the Virginia Supreme court unanimously held that the Steadfast Insurance Company (Steadfast) is not obligated to cover court costs for the Virginia-based energy group AES Corporation under its liability policy in another lawsuit, Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp. (Kivilina

The Financial Restrictions (Iran) Order 2009 and a licence made under it did not render illegal the provision of cover by a P&I club to an Iranian shipowner, nor had the insurance contract been discharged by reason of frustration

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • December 3 2010

In Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd & HM Treasury 2010 EWHC 2661, the court determined whether the provision of insurance cover by the Defendant P&I club to the Claimant Iranian shipowner had been rendered illegal, and further whether the contract of insurance had been discharged by frustration

District court judge confirms summary judgment victory for policyholder regarding the duty to defend and the pollution exclusion

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 2 2013

In January, we reported on developments in Wiseman Oil Co. v. TIG Insurance, a case pending in the United States District Court for the Western

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Jurisdiction

Workarea

© Copyright 2006-2013 Globe Business Publishing Ltd | Cookies | Disclaimer | Privacy policy