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.
The Tenth Circuit recently held that a law firm was not entitled to coverage from its malpractice insurer because a former partner of the firm had received a demand, unbeknownst to the firm, prior to the policy period
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, applying New Jersey law, recently held that all claims against an insured architectural firm arising out of the firm’s architectural work on a parking garage that later collapsed are not covered under its general liability policies due to professional services exclusions
