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: 11-20 of 37

11th Circuit holds E&O insurer has duty to defend legionalla claim

  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 12 2014

In its recent decision in James River Ins. Co. v. Hufsey-Nicolaides-Garcia-Suarez Associates, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4415 (11th Cir. Mar. 10, 2014

Fee exclusion deemed ambiguous

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 20 2013

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, applying California law, reversed an order granting judgment on the pleadings to an insurer

Connecticut Superior Court grants summary judgment for insurer based on total liquor liability exclusion

  • Locke Lord LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 9 2009

An insurer was recently granted summary judgment against its insured based on a commercial general liability insurance policy’s total liquor liability exclusion ("TLLE"

Georgia Federal District Court finds that hot tub water is “intended for bodily consumption”

  • Locke Lord LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 11 2009

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia recently held that an insurer had a duty to defend under a CGL policy and umbrella policy against claims relating to a hotel guest’s alleged contraction of Legionnaire’s Disease from a dirty hot tub

South Carolina decision on allocation of defense costs creates a trap for the responsive insurer

  • Nelson Brown Hamilton & Krekstein LLC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 28 2014

A recent decision by the U.S. District Court in South Carolina confirms the state's position as an outlier when it comes to whether an insurer that

Multiple occurrences in a single E.coli outbreak: double-edged sword for insureds?

  • Stoel Rives LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 1 2010

Marler Clark clients and the owners of the restaurant that sold MarlerClark's clients food they claim was contaminated with E.coli O111 joined forces against the restaurant's insurer

Insurers dispute coverage for food-related injury

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 15 2011

Seeking a declaration about respective indemnity obligations, National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. has filed a complaint in a California federal court against several other insurance companies in a dispute stemming from a neurological injury allegedly caused by the mahi-mahi fish served in a fish burrito at a Rubio’s Restaurant

Taco Bell appeals insurance coverage case to Ninth Circuit

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 13 2011

Taco Bell has requested that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals review a district court determination that three insurance companies are not required to provide coverage under commercial liability policies for economic loss allegedly arising from decreased patronage in the wake of a 2006 E. coli outbreak

Massachusetts court rules for carrier in property dispute, orders return of advance

  • Locke Lord LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 28 2011

The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently concluded that an insured could not claim property insurance benefits following a fire at its restaurant, because the insured had actual knowledge that its fire-suppression system was no longer functional, and because the insured had exclusive control over the system’s maintenance

What you need to know about the "ancillary benefits" of setting up a captive insurance company

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 27 2011

As explained in an earlier article, a captive insurance company is a subsidiary or affiliate of a closely-held business entity formed to insure or reinsure certain risks of those entities