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 348

Oklahoma Court holds failure to warn not a covered professional service
  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • USA
  • March 7 2013

In its recent decision in Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Saul, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29739 (W.D. Okl. Mar. 5, 2013), the United States District Court for


Punitive damages award fails to implicate dishonesty exclusion
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • June 9 2011

The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia has held that the dishonesty exclusion in a directors, officers and trustees liability policy was not triggered by a jury's award of punitive damages based on a finding of "fraudulent" conduct because the causes of action that gave rise to the jury's verdict against the insured did not involve fraudulent or dishonest conduct


Motions for summary judgment granted in part, denied in part, in action brought by hospital against insurer to recover for breach of contract for premiums drawn down from letter of credit: Lenox Hill Hosp. v. Amer. Int'l Group, Inc.
  • Farrell Fritz PC
  • USA
  • July 26 2011

In a June 7, 2011 decision by Justice Fried, the Court granted in part and denied in part cross-motions for summary judgment


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


Oklahoma court holds no coverage for medical malpractice claim
  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • USA
  • February 1 2013

In its recent decision in Admiral Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10754 (W.D. Ok. Jan. 28, 2013), the United States District for the


Plaintiffs waived waiver by failing to object to an argument's improper inclusion in a Rule 50(b) motion
  • Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
  • USA
  • June 8 2010

Tracey Wallace had trouble reading small print and driving at night


Professional services exclusion bars coverage for insured entity's vicarious liability
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • April 4 2011

A New Jersey appellate court has held that a professional services exclusion in a medical center's professional liability insurance policy precluded coverage for the center's vicarious liability for the negligence of its doctor


Payments by captive insurer count as loss for purposes of excess coverage
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • January 13 2011

A trial court in Massachusetts has held that payments by an insured's captive insurer, which provided the primary layer of insurance, count as loss for purposes of triggering an excess insurer's coverage obligation


Insurer not entitled to rescission as matter of law based on undisclosed malpractice claim made after application was submitted
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • October 20 2010

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, applying Illinois law, has held that it could not determine that a physician’s failure to disclose a claim made while his application for malpractice insurance was pending was a material misrepresentation as a matter of law


Notice of claim received by doctor's wife imputed to doctor and medical practice
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • September 14 2009

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has held that receipt of intent-to-sue letters by the wife of a doctor named as a defendant in an eventual medical malpractice claim who also served as vice president of the doctor’s medical firm (also named as a defendant) could be imputed to the doctor and the firm and, based on that determination, held that doctor and the firm’s two professional liability insurers were entitled to summary judgment on untimely notice and prior knowledge grounds