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: 1-10 of 259

Interpretation of actual and constructive total loss under the Marine Insurance Act 1906

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • February 25 2010

Masefield AG v Amlin Corporate Member Ltd 2010 EWHC 280 (Comm) concerned the interpretation of actual and constructive total loss under the Marine Insurance Act 1906

New York State Court denies motion to compel discovery of reinsurance and reserve information

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 29 2010

In Mt. McKinley Ins. Co. v. Corning Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 20235 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 14, 2010), an insured (“Corning”) moved to compel discovery of reinsurance and reserve information from its insurers, arguing that this information was relevant, material and necessary to its coverage claim

The effect of an arbitration agreement in an insurance policy

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • Hong Kong
  • -
  • March 30 2010

The recent High Court judgment in Rondabosh International Ltd v China Ping An Insurance (Hong Kong) Co Ltd 2009 HKEC 2103 demonstrates the effect of an arbitration agreement in an insurance policy

English Commercial Court considers challenge to an arbitration award

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • July 23 2010

In B v A 2010 EWHC 1626 (Comm), Mr Justice Tomlinson was asked to determine a preliminary issue concerning whether the claimant (B) had a realistic prospect of challenging an arbitration award (the Award) under sections 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act

Insurers face more noise-induced hearing loss claims following Court of Appeal decision

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • January 21 2010

Insurers may see increased exposure on employers' liability policies in 2010, particularly related to noise-related personal injuries, as the effects of the so-called textile deafness test litigation are felt in the industry

Court of Appeal rules on substitution of a party after expiration of limitation

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • August 9 2010

The Court of Appeal has had to consider the application of Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 19.5 in the case of Lockheed Martin Corporation v Willis Group Ltd 2010 EWCA Civ 927

District court finds that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state statute barring out-of-state arbitrations

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 14 2010

In Binder v. Medicine Shoppe International, Inc., No. 09-14046 (E.D.Mich. 2010), a breach of contract dispute between the plaintiff (a franchisor) and the defendant (a franchisee) arose out of a Uniform Franchise Offering Circular and subsequent License Agreement (“Agreement”

Insurer entitled to avoid policy from inception under fraudulent claims clause

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • October 14 2010

In the recent case of Joseph Fielding Properties (Blackpool) Ltd v Aviva Insurance Ltd (2010) EWHC 2192 (QB) the High Court was asked to consider whether an insurer was entitled to avoid a policy from inception relying on previous fraudulent and exaggerated claims, and misrepresentations and non-disclosures made by the claimant ('JFP'

Massachusetts court says subrogation waiver can survive project completion

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 7 2010

In a case of first impression, the Massachusetts Appeals Court has ruled that an insured's waiver of its carrier's subrogation rights can survive the completion of a construction project

Court finds coverage excluded for shooting by security guard

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 1 2010

A California Appeals Court recently held that a wrongful death action against a security guard who shot a man while on duty was excluded under an "assault and battery" exclusion, even if the security guard acted in self-defense