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 626

Georgia Federal District Court finds that hot tub water is “intended for bodily consumption”
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • November 11 2009

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia recently held that an insurer had a duty to defend under a CGL policy and umbrella policy against claims relating to a hotel guest’s alleged contraction of Legionnaire’s Disease from a dirty hot tub


South Carolina decision on allocation of defense costs creates a trap for the responsive insurer
  • Nelson Brown Hamilton & Krekstein LLC
  • USA
  • July 28 2014

A recent decision by the U.S. District Court in South Carolina confirms the state's position as an outlier when it comes to whether an insurer that


11th Circuit holds E&O insurer has duty to defend legionalla claim
  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • USA
  • March 12 2014

In its recent decision in James River Ins. Co. v. Hufsey-Nicolaides-Garcia-Suarez Associates, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4415 (11th Cir. Mar. 10, 2014


Fee exclusion deemed ambiguous
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • May 20 2013

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, applying California law, reversed an order granting judgment on the pleadings to an insurer


Florida Appellate Court holds that insurer must provide separate counsel to co-defendant insureds
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • March 4 2013

On February 20, 2013, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal held that an insurer was required to provide separate counsel to two


Taco Bell appeals insurance coverage case to Ninth Circuit
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • May 13 2011

Taco Bell has requested that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals review a district court determination that three insurance companies are not required to provide coverage under commercial liability policies for economic loss allegedly arising from decreased patronage in the wake of a 2006 E. coli outbreak


Insurers dispute coverage for food-related injury
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • April 15 2011

Seeking a declaration about respective indemnity obligations, National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. has filed a complaint in a California federal court against several other insurance companies in a dispute stemming from a neurological injury allegedly caused by the mahi-mahi fish served in a fish burrito at a Rubio’s Restaurant


Am I required to provide health insurance to employees as of 2014? Basic controlled group questions, answers and examples for hospitality employers
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • December 16 2010

Beginning January 1, 2014, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) will require employers with at least 50 full-time equivalent employees to offer health insurance


Tips for restaurant insurance claims in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy
  • Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
  • USA
  • November 7 2012

Superstorm Sandy has caused immense damage to the East Coast, with losses estimated in the tens of billions


Supreme Court rules on health care reform: what does this mean for employers in the hospitality industry?
  • Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
  • USA
  • July 10 2012

Health Care Reform, in the form of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, has now survived review by the Supreme Court