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 301

Liability insurers may have duty to defend against federal prosecutions, California Court of Appeal holds
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • May 6 2013

The Second Appellate District of California held on May 1 in Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Lopez that California Insurance Code section 533.5(b) does not

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

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

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

GAO and federal court weigh in on Section 111 infirmities but it's business as usual for CMS during town hall call
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • April 27 2012

The most newsworthy Section 111 developments come from a federal District Court that recently declared a legal malpractice insurer not to be a Responsible Reporting Entity (RRE) and the U.S. Da Silva Moore

Florida court affirms that insurer of physician is not obligated to indemnify based upon applicability of business liability policy’s professional services exclusion
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • January 27 2010

The District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida (the "Appeals Court") recently affirmed the trial court's determination that a doctor's business owner insurer was not obligated to indemnify the doctor for a wrongful death suit that resulted, in part, from the mis-filing of laboratory results by the doctor's assistant, although it did have a duty to defend

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

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

District court narrowly interprets bodily injury exclusion
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • June 23 2011

The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia has narrowly construed a bodily injury exclusion in a professional liability insurance policy in connection with determining that coverage existed for negligent supervision claims against the insured related to allegations of patient molestation by the insured’s employee

Dental malpractice coverage required under senate-approved legislation
  • Duane Morris LLP
  • USA
  • June 24 2011

Legislation that requires dentists to carry malpractice insurance cleared the Senate