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

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


No coverage because claim not made during policy period
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • June 12 2009

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, applying Massachusetts law, granted summary judgment in favor of an insurer, holding that a general liability policy that requires a claim be made during the policy period and reported either during the policy period or extended reporting period is not ambiguous


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


No coverage for amended complaint where original complaint and cross-claim were not timely reported
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • June 14 2007

The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, has held that failure to provide notice of a complaint and cross-claim bars coverage for any claims arising out of that action even when subsequent notice of an amended complaint is properly given


Notice issues arising under claims-made policies: an overview
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • December 18 2008

The notice requirements of claims-made policies serve many of the same purposes as do the notice requirements of occurrence policiesfor example, prompt notice allows an insurer to investigate a claim, participate in the defense (if appropriate) and effectuate an early settlement where warranted


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


Complaint filed prior to policy’s inception is not "claim made" within the policy period
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • November 12 2012

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada, applying California law, has granted an insurer’s motion to dismiss, holding that there is no coverage for a suit filed against the insured six months prior to the policy’s inception


Prior notice exclusion bars coverage for actions arising from loan transaction that gave rise to prior suit reported under earlier policy
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • August 12 2010

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has held that several lawsuits against an insured bank by different claimants, based on different legal theories, were sufficiently connected by the fact that they all arose out of the same loan transaction to trigger the prior notice exclusion in the bank's directors and officers liability policy


Loss run reports could serve as notice of claim
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • March 1 2011

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has held that an insured’s inclusion of a claim in loss run reports submitted to its insurer could, but did not in this case, constitute adequate notice of the claim


Insured v. insured exclusion does not preclude advancement of defense costs in failed bank litigation
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • Puerto Rico
  • April 2 2014

Applying Puerto Rico law, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has held that an insured v. insured exclusion does not preclude an