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 1,254

Revisiting AT&T v. Concepcion: can you hear me now?

  • Jorden Burt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 6 2012

Approaching the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in AT & T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, --- U.S. ---, 131 S. Ct. 1740, 179 L. Ed. 2d 742 (2011), it is noteworthy that the Court has felt it necessary to reiterate its holding, as courts have interpreted it more narrowly than was intended

"Reinsurance accepted” clause interpreted to define maximum exposure, including expenses

  • Jorden Burt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 5 2010

A court has found that a reinsurer's (Global Reinsurance Corporation of America) maximum exposure under a facultative certificate is $1 million dollars, inclusive of expenses

The Westphal shocker: how did a Florida court decide that a 19-year-old limit on workers’ compensation benefits is unconstitutional? Is substantive due process back?

  • Jorden Burt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 4 2013

In Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg, No. 1D12-3563 (Fla. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2013), a Florida appellate court recently ruled that a 2-year limit on

Recent decisions in 419 and 412(i) litigation

  • Jorden Burt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 2 2012

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reviewed the first case on appeal from MDL No. 1983, a multidistrict litigation proceeding designed to address claims related to employee benefit plans created under 412(i) and 419 of the Internal Revenue Code

What duty does a primary insurer owe to an excess carrier?

  • Jorden Burt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 15 2013

A primary liability carrier usually owes no duty to excess insurers, even though those insurers bear the cost of excess judgments. If the primary

Court refuses subject matter jurisdiction to review arbitration award, since the value of the award was less than the court’s jurisdictional amount

  • Jorden Burt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 5 2009

A dispute arose between Hansen Beverage Company and DSD Distributors over a distribution agreement

Sealing arbitration awards: contractual confidentiality obligations versus the presumption of public access

  • Jorden Burt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 10 2009

Arbitration benefits the public by freeing judicial resources

District court vacates arbitration award due to arbitrators’ “evident partiality”

  • Jorden Burt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 8 2010

Scandinavian Reinsurance Company petitioned a federal district court to vacate a final award in an arbitration between it and St. Paul Fire and Marine

First Circuit clarifies standard of review, concludes that agreement mandates arbitration

  • Jorden Burt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 29 2010

In this dispute between two parties to a joint venture agreement, one party filed a lawsuit and the other submitted an arbitration demand

Federal court of appeal announces review standard applicable to rulings on motions to stay lawsuits pending arbitration

  • Jorden Burt LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 18 2010

In a case of first impression at the federal appellate level, the First Circuit, in Powershare, Inc. v. Syntel, Inc., 597 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. Mar. 1, 2010), held that the appropriate standard of review to be utilized by a District Judge when reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s disposition of a motion to stay litigation pending the completion of a parallel arbitration proceeding is the clearly erroneous standard