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 124

Insurers may be required to provide defense of Bluetooth Headset cases even though complaints do not allege physical injury

  • Locke Lord LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 10 2008

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California recently denied several commercial general liability insurers' motions to dismiss, holding that the insurers may be required to defend the makers of Bluetooth Headsets against suits alleging negligent design and unfair marketing even though the suits do not allege that the plaintiffs suffered any physical injuries

Arizona Supreme Court holds that liability among tortfeasors in strict productions liability actions is several only, as opposed to joint and several

  • Locke Lord LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 25 2008

The Arizona Supreme Court recently held that Arizona’s 1987 abolition of joint and several liability extends to strict products liability actions, meaning that liability is several only and fault must be apportioned among tortfeasors even in cases involving strict liability

Connecticut Supreme Court reverses summary judgment on “common cause” provision in reinsurance treaties

  • Hunton & Williams LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 31 2008

In a dispute between a cedent and its reinsurers, the Connecticut Supreme Court has reversed summary judgment in favor of the reinsurers, holding that fact issues exist as to whether a “common cause” provision in excess of loss treaties permit aggregation of asbestos-related losses for the purpose of reinsurance payment

Insurance and related protections for importers of Chinese goods

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • China, European Union, USA
  • -
  • April 29 2008

Recalls of Chinese goods and litigation concerning defective products erode importers’ profits, threaten market share and damage established brands

Emerging risks in insurance

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 23 2008

This year, the emerging risks seem like old friends

Fifth Circuit rules that vendor’s endorsement in manufacturer’s policy provides coverage to seller of product

  • Hunton & Williams LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 30 2008

Vacating the district court’s ruling in a products liability action and remanding for further proceedings, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that, under Louisiana law, a claimsmade productscompleted operations liability insurance policy issued by an insurer to a manufacturer of a product provided coverage to a seller of that product pursuant to the policy’s vendor’s endorsement

Food liability issues: impaired property exclusion precludes coverage for sale of tainted bread

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 26 2008

A Georgia intermediate appellate court recently held that the impaired property exclusion precluded coverage for allegations that the policyholder bakery sold contaminated bread to a sandwich shop

U.S. court truncates effect of “policy territory” provisions, unexpectedly expanding general liability coverage for imported goods

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 22 2008

A little-noticed but consequential decision challenges the accepted notion of coverage territory in standard general liability policies in widespread use throughout the world

Insurer must defend maker of lead paint-tainted toys

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 26 2008

Last year's massive series of recalls of children's toys manufactured in China that contained lead paint spurred lawsuits seeking insurance coverage for losses arising out of the recalls

Under occurrence policy, damage occurred and insurer’s duty to defend was triggered on date when the injury happened, not date of discovery

  • Locke Lord LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 17 2008

On certified questions from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of Texas recently held that, when a policy does not otherwise specify, damages under an occurrence-based general liability policy “occur”, and an insurer’s duty to defend is triggered, on the date when the injury happens and not on the date the injury is discovered