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 87

Top reasons the JPML has denied centralization of products liability and salesmarketing cases

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 9 2014

Since May 2011, here are the most-cited reasons the JPML has denied Section 1407 centralization of products liability and salesmarketing cases: The

Class action round-up - spring 2014

  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 22 2014

In a mortgage-related row, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Central District of California’s grant of summary judgment in favor of several bank

Foster Farms sues insurers over definition of “recall”

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 11 2014

Poultry manufacturer Foster Farms has filed an amended complaint in its lawsuit against its Lloyd's of London insurers, which had rejected its $14.2

Product disparagement and "advertising injury": split of authority brewing in the California Court of Appeal?

  • Duane Morris LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 5 2012

A split of authority is brewing the California Court of Appeal regarding the scope of an insurer’s duty to defend an insured against claims of product disparagement under the “advertising injury” provisions of a commercial general liability policy

Court finds coverage for consequential damages arising from product recall

  • Gray Plant Mooty
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 16 2013

A Minnesota Federal District Court Judge recently ruled that the insured is entitled to defense and indemnification under its commercial liability

Do you have coverage for product contamination under your property policy?

  • Lowenstein Sandler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 25 2012

The decision in PBM Nutritionals v. Lexington Insurance Company, No. 110669 (Va. Cir. Ct., April 20, 2012), highlights the hurdles a company must overcome when trying to obtain insurance coverage for a first-party loss involving 'contamination.'

Insurance coverage for food and beverage contamination claims and recalls

  • King & Spalding LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 4 2012

Damages owed from illness and death claims resulting from actual or alleged food and beverage contamination, along with the cost of recalls of potentially contaminated products, present serious financial risk to companies involved in the manufacture or sale of food products

Pennsylvania courts struggle with insurance coverage for defective product claims

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 28 2013

In 2012, Judge Wettick of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas issued two decisions that have the potential to significantly limit the

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

Sixth Circuit upholds dismissal of $125 million insurance claim

  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 1 2011

On Monday, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the decision of the Northern District of Ohio in Bondex International, Inc. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co.pdf, dismissing an insured’s claims for $125 million in additional coverage for asbestos claims