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: 11-20 of 201

4th Circuit applies pro rata allocation
  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • USA
  • February 7 2012

In its recent decision in Pennsylvania National Mutual Cas. Ins. Co. v. Roberts, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2084 (4th Cir. Feb. 3, 2012), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, applying Maryland law, had occasion to consider allocation of loss arising out of a lead paint bodily injury lawsuit


Eleventh Circuit affirms duty to defend Legionnaires’ Disease lawsuit
  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • USA
  • October 26 2012

In its recent decision in Westport Ins. Corp. v. VN Hotel Group, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22187 (11th Cir. Oct. 25, 2012), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, applying Florida law, had occasion to consider whether a pollution exclusion and a fungibacteria exclusion operated to bar coverage for an underlying wrongful death claim involving Legionnaires' Disease


Ninth Circuit affirms dismissal of negligent misrepresentation claim
  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • USA
  • September 4 2013

In its recent decision in MultiCare Health System v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17981 (9th Cir. Aug. 28, 2013), the United States Court


Wisconsin court holds gas line explosion not covered under CPL policy
  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • USA
  • March 18 2014

In its recent decision in Acuity v. Chartis Specialty Ins. Co., 2014 Wisc. App. LEXIS 201 (Wisc. App. Mar. 12, 2014), the Court of Appeals for


Eighth Circuit holds pollution exclusion applicable to sealant fumes
  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • USA
  • May 14 2014

In its recent decision in United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Titan Contrs. Serv., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8879 (8th Cir. May 13, 2014), the United States Court


New York court holds claimants had no standing to sue professional liability insurer
  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • USA
  • February 25 2014

In its recent decision in Commonwealth Land Title Ins Co. v. American Signature Services, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22172 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2014


Florida court holds criminal conduct exclusion in E&O policy applicable
  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • USA
  • November 12 2013

In its recent decision in Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159639 (S.D. Fla


New York court holds professional services exclusion applicable
  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • USA
  • April 3 2013

In its recent decision in David Lerner Assocs. V. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46333 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2013), the United


New York court holds negligent supervision claim triggers defense
  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • USA
  • March 26 2012

In its recent decision in Am. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Sec. Income Planners & Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39444 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2012), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York had occasion to consider exclusions in a professional liability applicable to commingling andor conversion of client funds, and whether these exclusions applied to the named insured’s negligent failure to prevent an employee from committing such conduct


Delaware court rejects extrinsic facts in determining duty to defend additional insured
  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • USA
  • April 11 2012

In its recent decision in The Premcor Refining Group v. National Fire Insurance Co. of Hartford, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49097 (D. Del. Apr. 6, 2012), the United States District Court for the District of Delaware considered what allegations and extrinsic evidence can be considered in the context of determining a duty to defend a putative additional insured