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 1,108

Attorney-client and work-product privileges not waived by disclosure to insurer
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • October 29 2008

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has held that an insured did not waive the attorney-client privilege or the work-product privilege by sharing protected materials with its insurer


Definition of wrongful act and intentional acts exclusion bar coverage for action alleging fraud and conspiracy
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • November 14 2012

Applying Illinois law, the Appellate Court of Illinois has held, based on the policy’s definition of “wrongful act” and its intentional acts exclusion, that a professional liability insurer has no duty to defend an action alleging fraud and conspiracy


Notice under occurrence policies: issues beyond the prejudice debate
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • December 18 2008

This article will review key notice issues under occurrence-based policies, underscoring how multifaceted and complex the questions are that can arise when a notice defense is presented


Notice of intent to sue attorney for malpractice triggered duty to defend claim for sanctions
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • January 30 2009

Applying Pennsylvania law, a federal district court has held that a letter advising an insured attorney that his former client intended to bring suit for malpractice constituted a “claim” under a professional liability policy such that the insurer was obligated to defend pre-suit proceedings against the attorney for sanctions that had been brought by opposing counsel in the underlying action and in which the former client had joined the demand for relief


Priority of payments provision allows insurer to make settlement payments on covered claims against directors and officers
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • October 25 2012

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nebraska has held that an insurer may make settlement payments for claims against a debtor’s directors and officers where any claims of the debtor are subordinate to those of the directors and officers under the terms of the policy


Prior notice exclusion does not bar coverage where notice of circumstances was not valid under prior policy
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • February 15 2013

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, applying California law, has held that the prior notice exclusion of an excess policy did


Appellate court upholds allocation of loss based on “relative exposure” standard
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • July 20 2007

The New York Supreme Court Appellate Division has affirmed a trial court's ruling that the terms of a management liability policy allowed the insurer to allocate loss between insured and non-insured parties through the application of the "relative exposure" standard


Proof of prejudice under general liability policies
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • December 18 2008

Prejudice is a factor in establishing late notice under general liability policies in the majority of jurisdictions nationwide


Notice of circumstances was too general to satisfy policy
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • June 14 2007

A federal district court in Illinois has held that a policyholder failed to provide sufficient notice of circumstances that could potentially give rise to a claim to trigger coverage under a D&O policy where the policyholder informed the insurers that it was "contemplating" filing for bankruptcy and expected claims to be filed against its directors and officers


Breach of contract not a wrongful act under errors and omissions policy
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • May 12 2009

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, applying Illinois law, has held that a policyholder’s alleged breach of contract was not a "Wrongful Act" within the meaning of an errors and omissions policy