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 1,108

Definition of wrongful act and intentional acts exclusion bar coverage for action alleging fraud and conspiracy

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 14 2012

Applying Illinois law, the Appellate Court of Illinois has held, based on the policy’s definition of “wrongful act” and its intentional acts exclusion, that a professional liability insurer has no duty to defend an action alleging fraud and conspiracy

Settlement with insurer as to claim did not bar coverage for later-arising interrelated claim

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 26 2011

Applying Michigan law, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has held that a release executed between an insurer and policyholder that settled the parties’ coverage dispute under the applicable policy with respect to a claim did not preclude coverage for an interrelated claim made after the release

Disgorgement of undisclosed contingent commissions collected by insured constitutes restitution, not a "loss"

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 18 2011

The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois has held that an insurance broker could not recover under its multi-line professional liability policies amounts incurred defending and settling claims arising out of its alleged receipt of undisclosed contingent commissions because those claims sought from the broker only restitutionary damages, which the court concluded did not constitute insurable "loss."

Underlying insurance not exhausted by insured’s out-of-pocket payment of defense costs

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 17 2012

The Supreme Court of Delaware, applying California law, has held that an insured’s own payment of defense costs does not count toward exhaustion for purposes of triggering an excess insurer’s defense obligations

California district court: no coverage for complaints against insured law firm alleging improper withholding of fees

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 21 2013

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, applying California law, has granted an insurer's motion for summary

Prior notice exclusion bars coverage for actions arising from loan transaction that gave rise to prior suit reported under earlier policy

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 12 2010

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has held that several lawsuits against an insured bank by different claimants, based on different legal theories, were sufficiently connected by the fact that they all arose out of the same loan transaction to trigger the prior notice exclusion in the bank's directors and officers liability policy

No prejudice required for late notice in claims-made-and-reported policies

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 13 2014

Applying Massachusetts law, the Superior Court of Massachusetts has held that an insurer is not required to demonstrate prejudice from a late notice

Reporting requirement in policy conditions does not create claims-made-and-reported coverage

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 10 2014

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, applying California law, has denied an insurer's motion to dismiss its

Renewable energy coverage: insuring wind power risks

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 30 2009

By 2016, the market for renewable energy technology, including wind power, solar power, geothermal power and biofuels is expected to grow to $225 billion

Notice of circumstances was too general to satisfy policy

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 14 2007

A federal district court in Illinois has held that a policyholder failed to provide sufficient notice of circumstances that could potentially give rise to a claim to trigger coverage under a D&O policy where the policyholder informed the insurers that it was "contemplating" filing for bankruptcy and expected claims to be filed against its directors and officers