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 1,152

Houston flooding and lawyers - a climate change informed view
  • McCarter & English LLP
  • USA
  • May 27 2015

"After a natural disaster, such as a hurricane, litigation often follows to determine who will pay for the consequences." Mariner Energy, Inc. v


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


Texas Supreme Court rules on an insurer’s duty to defend EPA proceedings
  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • USA
  • August 7 2015

In McGinnes Indus. Main't Corp. v. The Phoenix Ins. Co. (Case No. 14-0465), the Texas Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote joined the majority of other courts


Down in the dumps: court refuses to apply pollution exclusion in landfill seepage case
  • Carlton Fields
  • USA
  • March 25 2015

Claims involving potential coverage for pollution liability pose unique challenges for insurers. In many cases, the polluting activity occurred


Supreme Court of Texas says EPA cleanup directive is a “suit” under commercial general liability insurance policies
  • Hunton & Williams LLP
  • USA
  • July 6 2015

The Supreme Court of Texas has ruled that CERCLA enforcement proceedings brought by the EPA are a "suit" as that term is used in commercial general


Wisconsin Supreme Court finds property damage and bodily injury caused by natural gas explosion covered under pollution liability policy
  • Hunton & Williams LLP
  • USA
  • April 15 2015

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin recently held in Acuity v. Chartis Specialty Insurance Company, No. 2013AP1303 (Wisc. Mar. 17, 2015), that property


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


Decision by a divided New Jersey Supreme Court protects leaky tank owner and insurers from damages for two-year delay in addressing contamination
  • Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP
  • USA
  • September 9 2015

The recent New Jersey Supreme Court opinion in Ross v. Lowitz, decided by a 4 to 3 vote, holds that insurers are not liable under New Jersey common


CERCLA action a "suit" for purposes of CGL policy, Texas Supreme Court rules
  • Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP
  • USA
  • July 15 2015

Answering a certified question from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Texas Supreme Court determined that an enforcement proceeding under the