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 647

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Princeton to pay $20 million to settle bad faith claim
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • July 2 2007

Princeton Insurance Company recently agreed to pay $20 million to settle a bad faith claim related to a dram shop lawsuit brought against their insured