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 125

Ninth Circuit confirms arbitration award, holds that panel’s ex parte meeting with certain expert witnesses did not justify vacatur
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • January 20 2010

Petitioner United States Life Insurance Company (“U.S. Life”) reinsured workers’ compensation policies issued by five insurers domiciled in California


District court denies motion to stay, holds that potential for unnecessary arbitration-related expenses does not constitute irreparable harm or clear hardship
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • January 22 2010

Plaintiff B.D. Cooke & Partners Limited, as Assignee of Citizens Casualty Company of New York (in Liquidation) (“Cooke”), filed a lawsuit against defendant Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (“Underwriters”


Connecticut Appellate Court affirms summary judgment holding that insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured in negligence claim brought by stabbing victim
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • January 25 2010

The Connecticut Appellate Court recently affirmed a trial court’s summary judgment holding that an insurance company had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured in a negligence action brought by a women who was stabbed twenty-four times by the insured


Ninth Circuit affirms ruling that reinsurer has no duty to contribute to settlement payment where reinsured excess policy was not triggered
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • July 2 2010

Texas Farmers Insurance Company ("Texas Farmers") issued claims-made insurance policies (transformed into occurrence-based policies through endorsement) to Kaiser Permanente, a medical facility, for the policy periods of 4999-4900, 4900-4901, and 4901-4902


Federal Court Orders Party to Produce Copies of its Reinsurance Agreements Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • July 27 2010

Plaintiff moved to compel production of defendant American Red Cross' reinsurance agreements


Massachusetts court reaffirms general liability insurers’ broad duty to defend
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • June 22 2010

The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently reaffirmed that jurisdiction's broad understanding of a general liability carrier's duty to defend, holding that an insurer had a duty to defend against a claim of trespass first asserted after the expiration of its policy period


Connecticut federal court awards summary judgment in favor of insurer due to insured’s failure to cooperate
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • September 25 2009

A Connecticut district court recently awarded summary judgment in favor of an insurance company due to the insured’s failure to cooperate in the insurer’s investigation of a claim


Connecticut Superior Court grants summary judgment for insurer in lawsuit involving uninsured motor vehicle claim and common law and statutory bad faith claims
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • September 28 2009

An insurer represented by Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge attorneys John Hughes and Julia Ulrich was recently granted summary judgment by the Connecticut Superior Court in a lawsuit involving a claim for uninsured motorist coverage, and also alleging common law and statutory bad faith against the insurer


Court finds that New York law governs reinsurance agreement, denies insured’s statutory claim for punitive damages and penalties against reinsurer
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • October 6 2009

Plaintiff Callon Petroleum Company ("Callon") commenced an action against National Indemnity Company ("NICO") to recover for a judgment Callon obtained against NICO’s cedent, Frontier Insurance Company ("Frontier"


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