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 47

Insurer seeks declaration in coverage dispute over diacetyl litigation
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • October 7 2011

Arch Specialty Insurance Co. has filed a declaratory judgment action in a New York state court against a company identified as a distributor of food product ingredients, including the butter-flavoring chemical diacetyl


California law applied to Costco’s cheese recall insurance coverage dispute
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • September 21 2012

Finding that California law applies to a dispute between Costco Wholesale Corp. and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., a federal court has dismissed Costco’s claims for violations of Washington state law and for bad faith coverage by estoppel arising out of the insurer’s refusal to handle claims of personal injury from cheese that Costco sold


Insurers must defend Four Loko maker in one of five lawsuits
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • January 20 2012

A federal court in Illinois has determined that insurers providing coverage to Phusion Projects, Inc., which makes Four Loko, an alcoholic beverage with large amounts of caffeine and other stimulants, do not have a duty to defend the company in lawsuits alleging injury from intoxication


Court dismisses insurer’s suit against Four Loko company
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • November 18 2011

A federal court in Illinois has granted the motion to dismiss filed by Phusion Projects, Inc., which sells Four Loko, a caffeinated alcoholic beverage, in a case brought by one of the company’s insurers seeking a declaration that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify the beverage maker in third-party lawsuits claiming injury, death or economic harm


First wave of settlement checks distributed in Salmonella-tainted egg outbreak
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • November 18 2011

Attorneys involved in the settlement of injury claims linked to Salmonella-contaminated eggs traced to Wright County Egg in Iowa have reportedly told The Associated Press that the first checks, issued by the egg producer’s insurer, are on their way to the first of dozens of individuals sickened during the 2010 outbreak


Federal court rules insurer must cover CERCLA administrative proceedings
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • November 11 2011

A federal court in Idaho has ruled that, under state insurance law, CERCLA administrative proceedings are “suits” and therefore insurers must cover the costs of dealing with such proceedings


Some claims dismissed in dispute over supply-chain insurance coverage
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • March 12 2010

A federal court in California has dismissed without prejudice some of the claims filed by a food supplier in a dispute over insurance coverage in food-contamination litigation


Eighth Circuit finds some poultry processing facility losses not covered by insurance
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • March 12 2010

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that certain business expense claims and a personal property claim made by a poultry processor for damages sustained during a break in electrical service caused by an ice storm were not covered by the processor's insurance policy


Court considers insurance coverage for Listeria contamination
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • December 10 2010

A federal court in Ohio has determined that, for the most part, an "all-risk" insurance policy excludes from coverage the losses sustained by a meat processor whose products were contaminated with Listeria during processing


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