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 123

New York State Court denies motion to compel discovery of reinsurance and reserve information
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • July 29 2010

In Mt. McKinley Ins. Co. v. Corning Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 20235 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 14, 2010), an insured (“Corning”) moved to compel discovery of reinsurance and reserve information from its insurers, arguing that this information was relevant, material and necessary to its coverage claim


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


Presentation on dispute resolution clauses
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • July 23 2010

Vince Vitkowsky of Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP presented on Thursday concerning Dispute Resolution Clauses in reinsurance contracts, which specifically focused on arbitration clauses


Chinese drywall - second bellwether trial complete
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • March 29 2010

As reported here, the first federal trial in the nationwide Chinese drywall controversy began on February 19th, 2010 in New Orleans, La


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


Pennsylvania Federal Court rules that fraudulent actswillful violation exclusion bars coverage based on CEO’s guilty plea and insurer entitled to recoupment of defense costs
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • November 11 2009

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, applying Pennsylvania law, recently held that the fraudulent actswillful violation exclusion contained in the subject Executive Protection Portfolio policy (the “Policy”) precluded coverage of defense costs for a criminal action and related derivative and securities lawsuits against an insured CEO


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


U.S. lawsuits based upon foreign toxic tort liability: a growing threat?
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • June 14 2010

In July 2009 in New Castle County in the State of Delaware, three separate plaintiffs filed civil suits against E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, Inc. (“DuPont”) alleging that their work at a DuPont textile plant in Mercedes, Argentina from 1961 to 2002 caused them to be exposed to and inhale asbestos fibers


California court refuses to extend coverage for fire intentionally set by child under homeowner’s policy
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • January 27 2010

Recently, a California Appeals Court denied coverage under a homeowner's policy for damages caused by a fire intentionally set by the insureds' son


Tenth Circuit holds demand sent to former partner of insured law firm triggered notice provision of claims made and reported policy
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • January 27 2010

The Tenth Circuit recently held that a law firm was not entitled to coverage from its malpractice insurer because a former partner of the firm had received a demand, unbeknownst to the firm, prior to the policy period