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 642

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


Eleventh Circuit affirms duty to defend Legionnaires’ Disease lawsuit
  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • USA
  • October 26 2012

In its recent decision in Westport Ins. Corp. v. VN Hotel Group, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22187 (11th Cir. Oct. 25, 2012), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, applying Florida law, had occasion to consider whether a pollution exclusion and a fungibacteria exclusion operated to bar coverage for an underlying wrongful death claim involving Legionnaires' Disease


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


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


Tenth Circuit rules that widespread E. coli outbreak constitutes a single occurrence under liability policies
  • Steptoe & Johnson LLP
  • USA
  • July 26 2012

In Republic Underwriters Insurance Company v. Moore, No. 11-5075, 2012 WL 2948177 (10th Cir., July 20, 2012), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, applying Oklahoma law, held that a restaurant’s general liability insurers were entitled to summary judgment that several hundred E. coli claims against the policyholder arose out of a single occurrence because all of the injuries were caused by one restaurant’s ongoing preparation of contaminated food


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


Multiple occurrences in a single E.coli outbreak: double-edged sword for insureds?
  • Stoel Rives LLP
  • USA
  • November 1 2010

Marler Clark clients and the owners of the restaurant that sold MarlerClark's clients food they claim was contaminated with E.coli O111 joined forces against the restaurant's insurer


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


U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals holds that liquor liability exclusion applies to claim against racetrack owner
  • Phelps Dunbar LLP
  • USA
  • August 4 2014

The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that an insurer had no obligation under Kentucky law to defend or indemnify a racetrack owner


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