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: 1-10 of 167

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

Renewable energy coverage: insuring geothermal risks

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 25 2009

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reports that geothermal energy production is a $1.5 billion a year industry

Federal judge in Florida rules underground storage tank policy cannot be rescinded

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 30 2008

A federal district court judge in Florida recently ruled that an insurer cannot retroactively rescind a liability policy insuring underground storage tanks (“USTs”) for an alleged material misrepresentation in the policy application

US District Court for the Southern District of New York finds term “contaminant” contained in definition of pollution in first party property insurance ambiguous precluding summary judgment in case involving WTC particulates

  • Hunton & Williams LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 31 2008

In Ocean Partners, LLC v. North River Insurance Co., No 04 CV 470 (BSJ) (GWG), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14967 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2008), the Southern District of New York denied an insurer’s motion for summary judgment with regard to the application of a pollution exclusion in a first party property policy to the infiltration of particulates from the WTC collapse in a nearby insured building

Massachusetts holds that pollution exclusion in general liability contract bars coverage for home heating oil leak

  • Hunton & Williams LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 18 2007

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently held that an absolute pollution exclusion in a general liability contract excluded coverage for a home heating oil leak caused by an installer of home heating equipment

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

When reinsurance may not be "back to back" - Wasa v Lexington

  • Mayer Brown LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 19 2009

Lexington issued an "All Risks Difference in Conditions" Property Damage Insurance Policy (the "Policy") to the Aluminium Company of America ("ALCOA") for the period 1 July 1977 to 1 July 1980

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

New Hampshire Supreme Court endorses pro rata allocation among triggered general liability policies by years and limits

  • Hunton & Williams LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 5 2007

On certified questions from the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has decided that New Hampshire will allocate liability for long-tail environmental claims pro rata by years and limits among triggered policies

Missouri Federal Court holds pollution exclusion inapplicable to exposure to fumes

  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 29 2013

In its recent decision in United Fire & Casualty Co. v. Titan Contractors Service, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10716 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 28, 2013), the

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Firm Name

Jurisdiction

Workarea

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