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 15

Evidence of oral settlement agreement reached in mediation inadmissible
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • August 19 2008

The Supreme Court of California has held that evidence of an oral settlement made in the course of mediation was inadmissible under California’s mediation confidentiality statutes


Overlapping prior claim not barred by prior and pending litigation exclusion
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • October 11 2012

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California has determined that “prior and pending,” specific matter and application exclusions in the second of two successive professional liability policies did not bar coverage for arbitrations having partial overlap with a claim made against the insured broker-dealer prior to the inception of the policy


No coverage for breach of contract claims
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • February 14 2013

A federal district court, applying Florida law, has held that a loan company was not entitled to coverage under an errors and omissions policy for


Insurance agent’s employee not an “insured” when alleged to be acting on behalf of an uninsured agency
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • November 18 2013

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, applying Texas law, has held that an insurance agent's E&O carrier had no duty


Delaware Supreme Court enforces consent to settle clause and precludes coverage
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • August 25 2009

The Supreme Court of Delaware, applying Missouri law, has held that an insurer acted in good faith in objecting to a settlement reached at a mediation that it did not attend pursuant to an agreement with the insured


Sixth Circuit holds that coverage of arbitration claims barred by policy exclusion
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • September 2 2009

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held that, under Ohio law, an insured was not entitled to coverage for defense costs where allegations in the underlying complaint did not state a claim potentially within the scope of the policy’s coverage


CFPB launches inquiry into effectiveness of arbitration clause in protecting consumer rights
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • April 26 2012

On April 24, 2012, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released a notice of public inquiry into "how consumers and financial services companies are affected by arbitration and arbitration clauses."


First Circuit holds no coverage under E&O policy for agency's breach of exclusivity clause
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • July 20 2007

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, applying Massachusetts law, has held that coverage was not available under an insurance agent and broker E&O policy for an arbitration award assessed against a policyholder for its breach of an agency agreement because the claims at issue arose out of the policyholder's ordinary business decisions rather than from its exercise of professional skills


Claimant is collaterally estopped from asserting that arbitration award triggers coverage under lawyers professional liability policy
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • December 10 2010

The Court of Appeals of North Carolina has held that a claimant is collaterally estopped from asserting that an arbitration award triggers coverage under an insured's lawyers professional liability policy where the arbitration award found the insured liable solely in his capacity as a fund manager


Court holds defense costs outside policy limits
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • June 1 2010

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, applying California law, has affirmed an arbitration ruling that defense costs paid by an insurer on behalf of an insured under a business management and indemnity policy did not erode the policy’s $1 million limit of liability