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 260

Interpretation of actual and constructive total loss under the Marine Insurance Act 1906
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • February 25 2010

Masefield AG v Amlin Corporate Member Ltd 2010 EWHC 280 (Comm) concerned the interpretation of actual and constructive total loss under the Marine Insurance Act 1906


Massachusetts Appeals Court holds that bad faith statute applies to captive insurers
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • December 10 2010

The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently ruled that the state's statute governing insurance companies' claims settlement practices applies to captive insurers


Federal court finds that the proper venue for a motion to confirm an arbitration award is the district in which the hearing was held, not where the award was signed
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • October 15 2010

NGC Network Asia, LLC (“NGC”) and Pacific Group International, Inc. (“PAC”) were parties to an arbitration held in New York


Chinese drywall - Florida federal district court finds no coverage under CGL policy
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • January 12 2011

In Amerisure Mutual Insurance Co. v. Albanese Popkin the Oaks Development Group L.P., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125918 (Nov. 30, 2010), Judge Kenneth A. Marra of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida ordered that the developer’s insurer has no duty to provide coverage or a defense for claims related to Chinese drywall, which were made against the developer


High court ruling causes headache for solicitors' professional indemnity insurers
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • December 16 2010

Mortgage Express v Mehrban Michael Singh Sawali 2010 EWHC 3054 (Ch) concerned attempts by Mortgage Express to obtain the entire contents of a solicitor's files created in relation to the solicitor's joint retention by Mortgage Express and a number of its borrowers


Connecticut Appellate Court holds substantial factor test remains unchanged in workers’ compensation cases
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • January 22 2010

The Connecticut Appellate Court recently held that the "substantial factor test" for causation remains unchanged and that traditional causation rules apply to workers’ compensation cases


NY court: insured may recover consequential damages absent insurer bad faith
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • December 23 2009

On December 15, 2009, New York's Appellate Division for the First Department held that an insured need not allege or prove that its insurer acted in bad faith in order to recover consequential damages stemming from the insurer's breach of the policy


Trustees' duties in employee life assurance schemes
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • January 7 2010

In Ms Jacqueline Power v (1) The Trustees of the Open Text (UK) Limited Group Life Assurance Scheme (2) Open Text (UK) Limited 2009 EWHC 3064 (Ch), the High Court considered whether either the trustee of an employee life assurance scheme or the employer that issued the scheme was under a duty to consider the level of cover provided under the scheme and whether the trustee was under a duty to consider whether the cover was appropriate


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


Massachusetts court reaffirms general liability insurers’ broad duty to defend
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • June 22 2010

The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently reaffirmed that jurisdiction's broad understanding of a general liability carrier's duty to defend, holding that an insurer had a duty to defend against a claim of trespass first asserted after the expiration of its policy period