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 537

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


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


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


Connecticut Superior Court grants summary judgment for insurer based on total liquor liability exclusion
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • June 9 2009

An insurer was recently granted summary judgment against its insured based on a commercial general liability insurance policy’s total liquor liability exclusion ("TLLE"


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


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


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


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


Louisiana court holds allegation of negligence did not trigger duty to defend
  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • USA
  • October 3 2011

In its recent decision New Orleans Deli & Dining v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111928 (E.D. La. Sept. 30, 2011), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana had occasion to consider whether under Louisiana law, an underlying suit pertaining to the insured’s alleged practice of depriving its employees of tips triggered a duty to defend under a commercial general liability policy


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