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

Supplemental extended reporting period does not supplant automatic extended reporting period

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 25 2013

A federal district court in North Carolina court has held that a one-year supplemental extended reporting period purchased by an insured upon notice

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

Subsequent related claims made after inception of reinsurance policy not excluded from coverage

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 24 2011

The Indiana Court of Appeals, applying Indiana law, has reversed a trial court’s judgment in favor of a reinsurer, holding that claims made after the inception of a claims made reinsurance policy that are related to prior claims made before the policy’s inception are not excluded from coverage under the applicable policy language in the reinsurer’s policy

Out-of-state punitive damages award precluded from coverage under New York law when it would offend the public policy of New York and the other state

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

Applying New York law, the New York Supreme Court, New York County, has found that a professional liability policy precludes coverage for the punitive damages portion of a jury verdict award against an insured in an out-of-state action

Eighth Circuit holds prior knowledge exclusion bars coverage for title insurer indemnification claim

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 8 2013

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, applying Missouri law, has held that no coverage is available where a land title agent had

No coverage for a claim first made during extended reporting period

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 14 2011

The Louisiana Court of Appeals, applying Louisiana law, has held that a claims-made policy provided no coverage to an insured physician for a claim first made against him during the extended reporting period because the related-claims and extended reporting period clauses do not extend the claims-made policy period

Fee exclusion deemed ambiguous

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 20 2013

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, applying California law, reversed an order granting judgment on the pleadings to an insurer

New York high court: insurer may not rely on policy exclusions if it breaches duty to defend

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 12 2013

The New York Court of Appeals, applying New York law, has held that, where an insurer breaches its duty to defend, the insurer "may not later rely on