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 1,363

New York federal bankruptcy court finds insurance insolvency proceeding does not “reverse - preempt” bankruptcy court jurisdiction
  • Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA
  • USA
  • February 2 2016

In a recent adversary proceeding in the chapter 11 case involving Ames Department Stores, Inc. (“Ames”), Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company


New Jersey Appellate Court affirms ruling that solvent insurers not responsible for portions of insolvent insurers
  • Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA
  • USA
  • January 27 2016

Earlier this month, a New Jersey appellate court affirmed a lower court’s ruling that the insured, not solvent insurers, was responsible for the


Financial ruin and the duty to settle within policy limits
  • Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • USA
  • October 17 2013

A liability insurance company has the right to take over the defense of a policyholder and to control all settlement discussions. What happens if the


New restrictions on creditors’ rights exclusions in title insurance policies
  • Bryan Cave LLP
  • USA
  • February 12 2010

Anyone who obtains title insurance, whether as an owner or a lender, should be aware of a recent abrupt and significant change in title insurance practices across the country


A guide to surviving the Lumbermens rehabilitation & liquidation
  • Dentons
  • USA
  • July 2 2012

In response to the July 2, 2012 Order of Rehabilitation, and an anticipated Order of Liquidation, against Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company and American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company, we have prepared the following “frequently asked questions” guide summarizing issues related to: (i) the financial regulation of insurance companies; (ii) the liquidation and proof of claim process in Illinois; (iii) potential recovery by policyholders of the amount of “covered” workers’ compensation claims from state guaranty associations; (iv) policyholder collateral; and (v) planning a response to the Lumbermens liquidation


Solvent run-off schemes in the United States: the Rhode Island statute and current challenges
  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • USA
  • March 21 2011

On March 16, 2011, a Rhode Island Superior Court heard arguments on whether Rhode Island's solvent restructuring statute violates the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution


A guide to surviving the Kemper liquidation
  • Dentons
  • USA
  • February 4 2010

In response to an imminent Order of Liquidation against the Kemper Insurance Companies, we have prepared the following "frequently asked questions" guide summarizing issues related to: (i) the financial regulation of insurance companies; (ii) the liquidation and proof of claim process in Illinois; (iii) potential recovery by policyholders of the amount of "covered" workers' compensation claims from state guaranty associations; (iv) policyholder collateral; and (v) planning a response to the Kemper liquidation


No standing, no jurisdiction, no case, no kidding
  • Carrington Coleman
  • USA
  • January 13 2016

In a case with a labyrinthine procedural historyspanning several years, cases, and courtsthe Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal for lack of


‘Contingent claim’ not sufficient to establish right of setoff for lift-stay motion
  • Reed Smith LLP
  • USA
  • October 15 2012

The debtor’s insurer sought to lift the automatic stay in order to setoff $2.2 million in return premiums against potential defense costs that the insurer expected to incur related to certain insurance claims made against the debtor


Priority of payments provision allows insurer to make settlement payments on covered claims against directors and officers
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • October 25 2012

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nebraska has held that an insurer may make settlement payments for claims against a debtor’s directors and officers where any claims of the debtor are subordinate to those of the directors and officers under the terms of the policy