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 1,465

Do we have coverage for this? Sometimes it’s worth getting a second opinion
  • Barnes & Thornburg LLP
  • USA
  • November 25 2014

Do you have coverage for claims? Here is a perfect example of a situation where you might not want to take no for an answer. Recently, a firm client


New York’s Highest Court Holds All Sums Allocation And Vertical Exhaustion Applied To Excess Insurance Coverage For Asbestos Claims
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • May 4 2016

On May 3, 2016, the Court of Appeals of New York issued its opinion in In re Viking Pump, No. 59, 2016 WL 1735790, and found that "all sums"


Wisconsin Supreme Court applies pollution exclusion to well contaminated with manure
  • Beveridge & Diamond PC
  • USA
  • January 26 2015

Recently, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the pollution exclusion applies to well water contamination arising from the application of manure to


Abandoned sand - if it's an "occurrence" can it be excluded?
  • Merlin Law Group, PA
  • USA
  • May 3 2015

When you think of sand, the first place you think about is likely not Indiana. But a recent ruling1 was about exactly that - 100,000 tons of abandoned


Endorsement trumps exclusions when evaluating coverage
  • Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP
  • USA
  • June 3 2015

A Florida federal court has ruled an endorsement specifically covering crop dusting trumped an exclusion in a coverage dispute involving the


Multi-million dollar insurance bad faith claim in environmental contamination case affirmed on appeal
  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • USA
  • February 25 2015

An environmental contamination case resulting in a $3.4 million award for emotional distress and punitive damages due to unfair claims settlement


Seventh Circuit applies Indiana choice of law rules to deny insurance coverage for contamination at an Indiana manufacturing facility
  • Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
  • USA
  • March 9 2015

Hoosier land owners sleep well at night knowing that they are insured against liability for environmental contamination because Indiana does not


Insurer required to cover costs its insured has incurred or will incur to remediate coal pollution
  • Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP
  • USA
  • August 27 2015

A Louisiana federal court held that a general liability insurer must indemnify its policyholder for costs incurred to address violations of the Clean


North Carolina federal court upholds application of pollution exclusion to Chinese Drywall claims
  • Rogers Townsend & Thomas PC
  • USA
  • August 17 2015

Insurance carriers have been pretty successful in denying coverage for Chinese Drywall claims, even in jurisdictions where the “middle ground”


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