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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 197

District court denies motion to stay, holds that potential for unnecessary arbitration-related expenses does not constitute irreparable harm or clear hardship
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • January 22 2010

Plaintiff B.D. Cooke & Partners Limited, as Assignee of Citizens Casualty Company of New York (in Liquidation) (“Cooke”), filed a lawsuit against defendant Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (“Underwriters”


Connecticut Appellate Court affirms summary judgment holding that insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured in negligence claim brought by stabbing victim
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • January 25 2010

The Connecticut Appellate Court recently affirmed a trial court’s summary judgment holding that an insurance company had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured in a negligence action brought by a women who was stabbed twenty-four times by the insured


Indiana District Court holds no underinsured motorist coverage for at fault driver
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • January 27 2010

An Indiana District Court recently granted summary judgment in favor of an insurer that was charged with breach of the insurance contract and bad faith for denying underinsured motorist benefits to its insured who was found at fault for causing a collision


Tenth Circuit holds demand sent to former partner of insured law firm triggered notice provision of claims made and reported policy
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • January 27 2010

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


Supreme Court of Canada considers the meaning of 'accident' under a group policy
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • Canada
  • January 22 2010

In the case of Co-operators Life Insurance v Gibbens, 2009 SCC 59, the insured contracted herpes through unprotected sex and, as a result, developed transverse myelitis, a rare complication of herpes, which left him paralysed from the waist down


Insurers face more noise-induced hearing loss claims following Court of Appeal decision
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • January 21 2010

Insurers may see increased exposure on employers' liability policies in 2010, particularly related to noise-related personal injuries, as the effects of the so-called textile deafness test litigation are felt in the industry


Ninth Circuit confirms arbitration award, holds that panel’s ex parte meeting with certain expert witnesses did not justify vacatur
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • January 20 2010

Petitioner United States Life Insurance Company (“U.S. Life”) reinsured workers’ compensation policies issued by five insurers domiciled in California


Army Corps of Engineers held liable in the "MRGO" Katrina-related litigation
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • January 7 2010

Recently, Judge Stanwood Duval, Jr. of the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana, found the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers liable for damages resulting from Hurricane Katrina-related flooding that occurred in certain areas outside of New Orleans


Oklahoma federal court holds claim for misrepresentations in home sale not covered by homeowners’ liability policy
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • January 6 2010

The United States District Court for Oklahoma recently ruled that homeowners’ liability policies (primary and excess) did not cover a homebuyer’s lawsuit against the insured sellers for misrepresenting the condition of the home’s fireplaces


Terminating contracts with insurance agents
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • Hong Kong
  • January 14 2010

In the recent case of Leung Chee Kuen Carol Macrady v American International Assurance Co (Bermuda) Ltd 2009 HKEC 1826, the court was asked to consider whether the insurance company AIA had wrongfully terminated its relationship with the plaintiff