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

Revised estimate says asbestos-related liability will cost UK insurers over £11bn by 2050
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • January 29 2010

The UK's Asbestos Working Party (AWP) has published its revised projection of the cost to employers' liability insurers of the UK's asbestos liability problem


Ninth Circuit holds that infringement of patented website feature constitutes "advertising injury"
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • April 14 2010

The Ninth Circuit recently ruled that a general liability insurer must defend its insured against a patent infringement lawsuit relating to a feature on the insured's website


Sixth Circuit upholds an insured’s decision to amend its current policy so as to render a prior policy the sole primary insurance
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • April 13 2010

On March 11, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court decision permitting an insured to shift the burden of primary coverage for various securities-related claims to its previous insurer by purchasing an extended reporting period (ERP) and adding an endorsement to its current primary policy making it specifically excess of the prior policy


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


Court denies Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • June 10 2010

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California recently granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss a class action brought by a class of purchasers of mortgage pass-through certificates


Commercial Court considers follow the settlements clause, allocation and recoverability IBNR
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • May 14 2010

IRB Brasil Ressegurous SA v CX Reinsurance Company Ltd 2010 EWHC 974 (Comm) concerned an appeal brought by IRB in relation to an arbitration award made in favour of CX Re and against IRB


Connecticut Attorney General wins in landmark contingent commissions case
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • May 10 2010

In a first-of-its-kind victory for a state attorney general, the office of Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal won its case against an insurance brokerage whom the court found to have failed to disclose to consumers the contingent commissions it received from certain insurers


U.S. Supreme Court rules on class arbitration, addresses manifest disregard of the law
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • May 12 2010

Petitioners ("Stolt-Nielsen") entered into a contract with respondent AnimalFeeds International Corporation that contained an arbitration clause


Court of Appeal rules on causation issues following negligent professional advice
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • May 24 2010

In Levicom International Holdings BV and anr v Linklaters (a firm) 2010 EWCA Civ 494, Levicom appealed against the first instance decision of Mr Justice Andrew Smith that, although Linklaters had negligently advised Levicom, Levicom had suffered no damage as a consequence because it would have proceeded in the manner that it had even if it had received non-negligent or proper advice


ATE insurance
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • May 7 2010

In Parker v Seixo 2010 EWHC 90162 (costs), which concerned the legal costs of a road traffic accident claim, the Court found that it should not consider the reasonableness of an After-The-Event insurance policy premium where the underwriter was better placed to rate the financial risk faced by the insurer and where there was no expert evidence to suggest that the ATE premium was unreasonable