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 148

Second Circuit: distinguishing between policy definitions subject to NY Insurance Law 3420(d)(2)’s timely disclaimer requirement as an exclusion and those that are not
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • June 16 2010

In a decision issued on February 1, 2010, the United Stated Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit confirmed that under New York law some policy provisions, although placed outside of the policy's "Exclusions" section, may nonetheless be considered an exclusion and, therefore, subject to the timely disclaimer and denial requirement of NY Insurance Law 3420(d)(2


U.S. lawsuits based upon foreign toxic tort liability: a growing threat?
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • June 14 2010

In July 2009 in New Castle County in the State of Delaware, three separate plaintiffs filed civil suits against E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, Inc. (“DuPont”) alleging that their work at a DuPont textile plant in Mercedes, Argentina from 1961 to 2002 caused them to be exposed to and inhale asbestos fibers


High Court rules no liability for lack of timely notice
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • April 7 2010

The English High Court, in Loyaltrend Limited and Sye Razvi v Brit UW Limited & Others 2010 EWHC 425 (Comm), ruled in favour of the Second Defendant (Brit) because the Claimants failed to notify the insurer in a timely manner as specified in the policy


Federal court rules no coverage for Chinese drywall damages under homeowner’s policy
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • June 7 2010

On June 3, 2010 Judge Robert G. Doumar of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that a homeowner’s policy did not cover damages associated with Chinese manufactured drywall


Court holds coverage for Madoff suits excluded under policy’s insolvency exclusion
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • June 8 2010

The US District Court for the District of Connecticut recently dismissed a customer suit against an insurer, based upon its determination that all of the underlying claims were excluded by the policy's Insolvency Exclusion


Chinese drywall - second bellwether trial complete
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • March 29 2010

As reported here, the first federal trial in the nationwide Chinese drywall controversy began on February 19th, 2010 in New Orleans, La


Lehman defendants' motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part in In re: Lehman Brothers Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • March 29 2010

On February 17, 2010 Judge Kaplan issued a written opinion granting in part and denying in part the individual Lehman defendants' motion to dismiss in In re: Lehman Brothers Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation


High court refuses compensation for exaggerated claim
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • June 17 2010

In Farid Yeganeh v Zurich Plc and Zurich Insurance Company 2009 Folio 244, the High Court found that Zurich did not have to pay any compensation to Mr Yeganeh as he had breached a condition of his insurance policy by making fraudulent claims for property lost in a house fire


Federal court in Ohio recognizes cause of action for insurer bad faith outside claim handling context
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • June 8 2010

"Although Ohio courts have generally found independent tort liability only in cases of improper processing and handling of claims," the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio held that a claim predicated on an insurer’s failure to refund unearmed premiums can support an independent claim for bad faith


Iowa Supreme Court upholds denial of coverage to life insurer for failure to disclose applicants’ HIV positive status
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • June 7 2010

In Farm Bureau Life Insurance Co. v. Chubb Custom Insurance Co. et al., the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling that Farm Bureau was not entitled to liability coverage in its disputes with two applicants that were HIV positive