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 1,425

Selected Kansas legislative activity, March 21-24
  • Foulston Siefkin LLP
  • USA
  • March 28 2016

The legislative leadership proved last week that the legislative process can move with alacrity when necessary. During the last month and a half of


5th Cir. issues important decision re environmental cleanupinsurance coverage case
  • Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
  • USA
  • August 5 2015

In another recent Fifth Circuit case, Cox Operating , L.L.C. V. St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company, decided July 30, 2015, the Court of Appeals


California: insurers must cover “long tail” claims regardless of corporate reorganization during intervening years
  • Gordon & Rees LLP
  • USA
  • August 26 2015

Many insurance policies contain provisions barring assignment of the insured’s rights without the insurer’s consent, which have been interpreted to


Illinois Appellate Court rejects insurer contention that "broad and general" pollution exclusion barred mold-related claims
  • Jenner & Block LLP
  • USA
  • November 5 2015

Certain jurisdictions interpret the pollution exclusion more expansively than others, see, e.g., Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. C.A


When is a policy renewal not a renewal?
  • Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
  • USA
  • October 23 2015

Acquiring adequate insurance coverage against environmental risks, in particular the spill or release of pollutants or contaminants in day-to-day


Selection of Environmental CounselConsultant: Federal District Court (Indiana) Addresses Insurance CompanyInsured's Policy Rights
  • Mitchell Williams Selig Gates & Woodyard PLLC
  • USA
  • January 3 2017

A United States District Court (S.D. Indiana) in a December 27th opinion addressed whether the beneficiary (i.e., insured) of an insurance policy


District Court Reviews Definition of “Gross Negligence” in Oil Pollution Act Reimbursement Action
  • Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
  • USA
  • December 30 2016

On December 22, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an opinion in Water Quality Insurance Syndicate v. U.S., which reversed


Second Circuit canvases case law, upholds pollution exclusion
  • Steptoe & Johnson LLP
  • USA
  • September 13 2013

In Emerson Enterprises, LLC v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. et al., No. 12-4287-CV, 2013 WL 4753564 (2d Cir. Sept. 5, 2013), the Second


PRP letter triggered coveragebut delay precludes claim against insurers
  • Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP
  • USA
  • September 18 2013

A letter sent by the EPA in 2001 pursuant to CERCLA warning Land O'Lakes that it could be a potentially responsible party ("PRP") for cleanup of an


Pollution claimsapparently here to stay
  • Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP
  • USA
  • September 18 2013

With the advent of the "absolute" pollution exclusion in commercial general liability ("CGL") policies in the mid-1980s, many in the insurance