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 41

California law applied to Costco’s cheese recall insurance coverage dispute

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 21 2012

Finding that California law applies to a dispute between Costco Wholesale Corp. and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., a federal court has dismissed Costco’s claims for violations of Washington state law and for bad faith coverage by estoppel arising out of the insurer’s refusal to handle claims of personal injury from cheese that Costco sold

Insurance policy ambiguous; broad coverage could be available for tainted peanut butter claims

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 6 2011

A divided Delaware Supreme Court has determined that ConAgra's insurance contract is ambiguous and therefore might provide broader coverage, with a lower "retained limit" or deductible, for claims arising out of an alleged Salmonella outbreak involving the company's peanut butter

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

Federal court certifies insurance coverage question in meat recall to state court

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 11 2011

Finding no clear state precedent, a federal court in Ohio has certified to the state supreme court a question arising in a case involving insurance coverage for Listeria-contaminated meats that led to the destruction of 1 million pounds of meat products in 2006

Federal court dismisses insurance coverage action in tainted baby formula case

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 25 2011

A federal court in Virginia has issued an order dismissing without prejudice claims filed against two insurers by a company that makes baby formula; the parties stipulated to the dismissal after similar litigation concluded with a defense verdict following trial in state court

Federal court disallows third-party insurance claims for environmental costs; Iqbal and Twombly implicated

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 27 2011

A federal court in California recently ruled that an insurance company cannot recover payments made to a policyholder for environmental response costs as a matter of federal law, except in certain limited circumstances

Some claims dismissed in dispute over supply-chain insurance coverage

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 12 2010

A federal court in California has dismissed without prejudice some of the claims filed by a food supplier in a dispute over insurance coverage in food-contamination litigation

Virginia Supreme Court finds no CGL insurance coverage in climate change litigation

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 30 2011

The Virginia Supreme Court has ruled that the insurance carrier for an energy company sued over global climate change did not have a duty to defend or provide indemnity coverage because there was no “occurrence” as required by the relevant policy

California court reverses $12-million verdict , rules spinach contamination not insured

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 16 2011

A California court of appeal has determined that a trial court erred in allowing a spinach seller to recover $12 million under the accidental contamination portion of its insurance policy