Search results
Order by most recent / most popular / relevance
Results: 1-10 of 16
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
Florida Appellate Court holds that insurer must provide separate counsel to co-defendant insureds
- Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- March 4 2013
On February 20, 2013, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal held that an insurer was required to provide separate counsel to two
Wash. Ct. Of Appeals: firearms exclusion precludes coverage for pre-shooting negligence
- Stoel Rives LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- January 25 2013
In Capitol Specialty Insurance v. JBC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al. (pdf), the Washington Court of Appeals held that a firearms exclusion in a
Eleventh Circuit affirms duty to defend Legionnaires’ Disease lawsuit
- Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- October 26 2012
In its recent decision in Westport Ins. Corp. v. VN Hotel Group, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22187 (11th Cir. Oct. 25, 2012), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, applying Florida law, had occasion to consider whether a pollution exclusion and a fungibacteria exclusion operated to bar coverage for an underlying wrongful death claim involving Legionnaires' Disease
Tenth Circuit rules that widespread E. coli outbreak constitutes a single occurrence under liability policies
- Steptoe & Johnson LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- July 26 2012
In Republic Underwriters Insurance Company v. Moore, No. 11-5075, 2012 WL 2948177 (10th Cir., July 20, 2012), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, applying Oklahoma law, held that a restaurant’s general liability insurers were entitled to summary judgment that several hundred E. coli claims against the policyholder arose out of a single occurrence because all of the injuries were caused by one restaurant’s ongoing preparation of contaminated food
Court grants, denies summary judgment in Travel Re-Insurance action
- Jorden Burt LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- May 23 2012
Liberty Travel (and affiliated travel and leisure companies) and Travel Re-Insurance filed cross-motions for summary judgment on a dispute related in part to reinsurance of travel insurance products sold by Liberty to its customers
California court addresses payment of self-insured retention
- Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- January 9 2012
In its recent decision in National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Federal Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 641 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2012), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California had occasion to consider the issue of whether an insured was required to satisfy a self-insured retention with its own funds, or whether the retention could be paid by other insurance
Florida court holds insurer has duty to indemnify legionella bacteria claim
- Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- October 13 2011
In Westport Ins. Corp. v. VN Hotel Group, LLC, 761 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (M.D. Fla. 2010), the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that a general liability carrier had a duty to defend its insured in connection with a wrongful death lawsuit arising out of a hotel guest’s exposure to Legionella bacteria
Louisiana court holds allegation of negligence did not trigger duty to defend
- Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- October 3 2011
In its recent decision New Orleans Deli & Dining v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111928 (E.D. La. Sept. 30, 2011), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana had occasion to consider whether under Louisiana law, an underlying suit pertaining to the insured’s alleged practice of depriving its employees of tips triggered a duty to defend under a commercial general liability policy
Massachusetts court rules for carrier in property dispute, orders return of advance
- Edwards Wildman Palmer 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
Current Search
- Workarea - Leisure & Tourism

- Workarea - Insurance & Reinsurance

- Workarea - Litigation

- Jurisdiction - USA

Suggested Facets
Author
- Brian Green (1)
- Brian Margolies (4)
- Helen Clark (1)
- Jeanne Kohler (1)
- John Black (1)
- John David Dickenson (1)
- Kenneth Odza (1)
- M Machua Millett (1)
- Madeleine McDonough (2)
- Mark Anstoetter (2)
Firm Name
- Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP (5)
- Jorden Burt LLP (1)
- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP (2)
- Steptoe & Johnson LLP (1)
- Stoel Rives LLP (2)
- Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP (4)
- Wiley Rein LLP (1)