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: 11-19 of 19

Insurance cos. seek declaration of no duty to defend Four Loko lawsuits

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 12 2012

Two commercial liability insurance companies have filed a complaint against Phusion Projects Inc., the company that makes Four Loko, an alcoholic beverage containing stimulants such as caffeine, guarana and taurine, seeking a declaration that “they do not owe a duty to defend or indemnify” the company in personal injury and wrongful death actions filed against it in several states

Seventh Circuit says no duty to defend four Loko maker

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 20 2013

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that Phusion Projects' commercial liability insurance carriers have no duty to defend the company

Court dismisses insurer’s suit against Four Loko company

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 18 2011

A federal court in Illinois has granted the motion to dismiss filed by Phusion Projects, Inc., which sells Four Loko, a caffeinated alcoholic beverage, in a case brought by one of the company’s insurers seeking a declaration that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify the beverage maker in third-party lawsuits claiming injury, death or economic harm

Insurers claim no duty to defend four Loko lawsuits

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 24 2011

Insurance companies with policies covering Phusion Projects, Inc., which makes the caffeinated alcohol beverage Four Loko, have filed a summary judgment motion in their declaratory judgment action against the company, claiming that a policy exclusion unambiguously frees them from defending or indemnifying the beverage maker

First wave of settlement checks distributed in Salmonella-tainted egg outbreak

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 18 2011

Attorneys involved in the settlement of injury claims linked to Salmonella-contaminated eggs traced to Wright County Egg in Iowa have reportedly told The Associated Press that the first checks, issued by the egg producer’s insurer, are on their way to the first of dozens of individuals sickened during the 2010 outbreak

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 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

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