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 685

Florida court holds insurer has duty to indemnify legionella bacteria claim
  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • USA
  • October 13 2011

In Westport Ins. Corp. v. VN Hotel Group, LLC, 761 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (M.D. Fla. 2010), the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that a general liability carrier had a duty to defend its insured in connection with a wrongful death lawsuit arising out of a hotel guest’s exposure to Legionella bacteria


California limits workers' compensation claims by professional athletes, including former NFL players with concussion-related injuries
  • Hogan Lovells
  • USA
  • October 11 2013

Following news of the NFL concussion litigation settlement, the NFL and other professional leaguesteams as well their insurers just


Wash. Ct. Of Appeals: firearms exclusion precludes coverage for pre-shooting negligence
  • Stoel Rives LLP
  • USA
  • January 25 2013

In Capitol Specialty Insurance v. JBC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al. (pdf), the Washington Court of Appeals held that a firearms exclusion in a


Whose case is it, anyway?
  • Anderson Kill, PC
  • USA
  • March 31 2015

Every year, hotels are subject to a host of lawsuits, both valid and meritless, from guests who claim to have suffered on-premises injury. The


Battery exclusion prevents coverage for exotic dancer set on fire by customer
  • Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP
  • USA
  • October 2 2013

Why it matters: An exotic dancer was the victim of a terrible crime perpetrated by a spurned applicant for a job as an exotic dancer. The victim sued


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


California court addresses payment of self-insured retention
  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • USA
  • January 9 2012

In its recent decision in National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Federal Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 641 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2012), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California had occasion to consider the issue of whether an insured was required to satisfy a self-insured retention with its own funds, or whether the retention could be paid by other insurance


Court grants, denies summary judgment in Travel Re-Insurance action
  • Jorden Burt LLP
  • USA
  • May 23 2012

Liberty Travel (and affiliated travel and leisure companies) and Travel Re-Insurance filed cross-motions for summary judgment on a dispute related in part to reinsurance of travel insurance products sold by Liberty to its customers


Massachusetts court rules for carrier in property dispute, orders return of advance
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • June 28 2011

The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently concluded that an insured could not claim property insurance benefits following a fire at its restaurant, because the insured had actual knowledge that its fire-suppression system was no longer functional, and because the insured had exclusive control over the system’s maintenance