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 288

First Circuit: no coverage under claims made and reported policy if insured fails to report claim within policy period
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • July 29 2009

The First Circuit recently held that an insured was not entitled to coverage under a Professional Liability claims made and reported policy where the claim is not both made against the insured and reported to the insurer within the policy period


Chinese drywall judicial panel on multi-district litigation rules that insurance coverage matter should not be transferred to Chinese drywall MDL proceedings
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • December 30 2009

On December 2, 2009 the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (“JPML”) rejected efforts to transfer an insurance coverage action to the federal Chinese Drywall Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”) pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana


Connecticut trial court holds that “general business practice” element of an unfair settlement practice claim requires multiple acts of misconduct against multiple insureds
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • February 5 2010

A Connecticut trial court recently held that the “general business practice” element of an unfair settlement practice claim under the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. 38a-816(6) (“CUIPA”) requires that a plaintiff prove multiple unfair practices by an insurer against more than one insured


The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation enters cooperation agreement with the United Kingdom’s financial regulator
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • July 24 2009

On Tuesday, July 21, 2009, the head of the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation ("FLOIR"), Commissioner Kevin McCarty, announced the signing of a memorandum of understanding ("MoU") with the United Kingdom Financial Services Authority ("FSA"), the United Kingdom’s regulator responsible for regulatory oversight of the insurance, banking and securities markets


New York State Insurance Department reminds licensees of compliance obligations under federal laws
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • July 28 2009

The New York State Insurance Department (the "Department") recently issued Circular Letter No. 11 to remind licensees of their obligations to comply with three federal laws: (i) the Bank Secrecy Act set forth in 31 U.S.C. 5311-5330 ("BSA"); (ii) the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act set forth in 15 U.S.C. 78dd-1-78dd-3 ("FCPA"); and (iii) requirements issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control set forth in 31 U.S.C. 313(a)(6)(c) ("OFAC", collectively with BSA and FCPA, the "Federal Laws"


Georgia Federal District Court finds that hot tub water is “intended for bodily consumption”
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • November 11 2009

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia recently held that an insurer had a duty to defend under a CGL policy and umbrella policy against claims relating to a hotel guest’s alleged contraction of Legionnaire’s Disease from a dirty hot tub


Second Circuit: distinguishing between policy definitions subject to NY Insurance Law 3420(d)(2)’s timely disclaimer requirement as an exclusion and those that are not
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • June 16 2010

In a decision issued on February 1, 2010, the United Stated Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit confirmed that under New York law some policy provisions, although placed outside of the policy's "Exclusions" section, may nonetheless be considered an exclusion and, therefore, subject to the timely disclaimer and denial requirement of NY Insurance Law 3420(d)(2


NY court: insured may recover consequential damages absent insurer bad faith
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • December 23 2009

On December 15, 2009, New York's Appellate Division for the First Department held that an insured need not allege or prove that its insurer acted in bad faith in order to recover consequential damages stemming from the insurer's breach of the policy


New Jersey trial court cannot apportion defense costs based on claimed damages, but must apportion based on the reasonable value of the legal services rendered in defending the respective claims
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • February 17 2010

The New Jersey Appellate Division in William H. Hall Co. v. Harleysville Ins. Co. of NJ (October 13, 2009) reversed and remanded a trial court’s decision in a declaratory judgment action following summary judgment motions made by the parties


California federal court rules that “insured v. insured” exclusion does not preclude insurer’s payments of defense costs in claim brought jointly by insureds and non-insureds
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • December 1 2009

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, applying California law, has held that an “insured v. insured” clause exclusion in a D&O policy for claims asserted by an insured against an insured did not preclude the insurer from paying for the entire defense costs incurred by insured and non-insured claimants