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 23

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

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 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

Court resolves insurance coverage issues for diacetyl defendants

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 22 2011

A New York state court has determined that a company which made the butter flavoring chemical at issue in workplace exposure lawsuits succeeded to a predecessor's insurance coverage rights

Court finds insurer has duty to defend in GM rice lawsuits

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 17 2011

A federal court in Arkansas has determined that Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. has a duty to defend an agricultural cooperative in more than 170 civil lawsuits filed by rice farmers over the contamination of their conventional crops with a genetically engineered (GE) variety

Insurer seeks declaration in coverage dispute over diacetyl litigation

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 7 2011

Arch Specialty Insurance Co. has filed a declaratory judgment action in a New York state court against a company identified as a distributor of food product ingredients, including the butter-flavoring chemical diacetyl

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

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

Insurers seek reimbursement for costs of defending restaurant in food toxin suit

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 20 2012

The insurance carriers for Rubio’s Restaurant have filed a motion for summary judgment in a dispute with the company that insured the restaurant’s fish supplier, following the settlement of claims pursued by a restaurant patron who alleged that he has permanent and severe neurological injuries from exposure to a toxin from the mahi-mahi in a Rubio’s fish burrito