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

Priority of payments provision allows insurer to make settlement payments on covered claims against directors and officers

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 25 2012

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nebraska has held that an insurer may make settlement payments for claims against a debtor’s directors and officers where any claims of the debtor are subordinate to those of the directors and officers under the terms of the policy

Prior knowledge exclusion bars coverage for legal malpractice claim

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 6 2011

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, applying Ohio law, has held that a claim for legal malpractice was not covered under a lawyer's professional liability (LPL) policy because the claim was reasonably foreseeable at the time the policy was issued

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

Triggering the duty to defend additional insureds: looking beyond the complaint?

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 7 2012

It commonly is held that an insurer's duty to defend is broader than its duty to indemnify and that, where the policy provides for such a duty, it is triggered by allegations suggesting a reasonable possibility of coverage, even if those allegations are ultimately groundless

Prior proceeding exclusion does not bar coverage for qui tam action

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 9 2012

The Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, has denied a motion to dismiss filed by insurance company defendants, holding that a policy’s “pending and prior proceedings” exclusion did not bar coverage for a qui tam action brought against an insured lender

Eighth Circuit: “error” under E&O policy includes intentional, non-negligent acts or mistakes, including breach of contract claims

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 10 2008

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, applying Texas law, has held that the definition of "error" in an E&O policy includes intentional, non-negligent acts or mistakes, including breaches of contract, and thus an insurer had a duty to defend its insured against breach of contract and breach of warranty allegations

Insurance denied for retailers facing Song-Beverly Act claims

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 17 2014

A California trial court has held that penalties recoverable under the state's Song-Beverly Act, which prohibits retailers from requiring certain

Insured cannot sue insurer for amounts paid to settle claim without insurer’s consent

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 8 2014

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has dismissed an insured's complaint seeking coverage for amounts it paid to

Fraudulent conduct of principals imputed to company, barring coverage

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 11 2011

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, applying Ohio law, has held that a dishonesty exclusion barred coverage under primary and excess directors and officers policies for the Wrongful Acts of the principals of a bankrupt company, all of whom were criminally convicted of securities fraud and related crimes

Untimely notice not bar to coverage where insurer could not prove actual prejudice

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 8 2011

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has held that an excess insurer did not prove that it was sufficiently prejudiced by the insured’s late notice of a claim to justify a denial of coverage