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 936

Court finds policyholder waived privileges by placing them “at issue” in coverage dispute
  • Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP
  • USA
  • May 20 2015

In a cautionary case for policyholders, a federal court in Florida found that an insured waived the attorney-client privilege and work product

Insurer not liable for coverage for attorney malpractice claim due to business enterprise and status exclusions
  • Bressler, Amery & Ross PC
  • USA
  • May 7 2015

In Lee & Amtzis, LLP v. American Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op. 02919 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t April 7, 2015), an intermediate New York

Loss reserves set by insurer after litigation threat are protected work product
  • Jenner & Block
  • USA
  • March 25 2015

In Schreib v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., No. C14-0165JLR (W.D. Wash. Dec. 15, 2014), the district court held that individual case reserves

Attorney-client privilege
  • Dickinson Wright PLLC
  • USA
  • February 20 2015

In Everest Indemnity Insurance Company v. Rea, copy attached, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that an insurer does not waive the attorney-client

New Arizona Court of Appeals decision: insurer only waives privilege if it affirmatively asserts it acted in good faith because it relied on counsel’s advice
  • Steptoe & Johnson LLP
  • USA
  • February 3 2015

In Everest Indem. Ins. Co. v. Rea, the Arizona Court of Appeals recently held that an insurer's admission that it consulted with counsel in making

Dancing the witness-advocate line
  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • USA
  • January 30 2015

When is a lawyer more than just a lawyer? It’s a question that insurers are facing with increased frequency as their outside counsel straddle the

Cedell v. Farmers where are we now?
  • Gordon & Rees LLP
  • USA
  • January 27 2015

In Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington, 176 Wn.2d 686 (2013), the Washington Supreme Court significantly restricted an insurer’s

New York appellate court broadens common interest protection, eliminates litigation requirement
  • Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP
  • USA
  • December 17 2014

In an opinion from a unanimous New York appellate panel, the court expanded the state’s previously narrow view to recognize that litigation is not

No insurance coverage for attorneys’ fees that were ordered as a “sanction”
  • Thompson Hine LLP
  • USA
  • December 11 2014

If you or your firm were ordered to pay a party's legal fees as a "sanction" for professional misconduct, would your professional liability insurance

“Arising out of” language broad enough to link coverage for law firm fee dispute to professional liability policy language
  • Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP
  • USA
  • November 19 2014

Taking a broad interpretation of the phrase “arising out of the rendering of or failure to render Professional Legal Services,” a federal court in