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 1,184

Product recall exclusion held not to bar coverage for recall of tainted milk
  • Michael Best & Friedrich LLP
  • USA
  • May 27 2014

On March 18, 2014, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by a Minnesota federal judge that Main Street Ingredients LLC (Main Street), a


New York court holds asbestos coverage available under premises-operations hazard
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • May 25 2007

A New York state trial court ruled on May 8 that asbestos claims arising out of a policyholder's installation of asbestos-containing materials fell within the policy's premises-operations hazard rather than the policy's products hazard


Total Recall: Maximizing the Return on Product RecallContamination Insurance
  • Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
  • USA
  • October 10 2016

If you believe the news, I may be lucky to make it out of the driveway alive on my morning commute tomorrow. That microwave-ready triple egg breakfast


Pennsylvania Superior Court finds coverage under CGL policy for product defect claims
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • April 25 2014

Policyholders seeking defense costs for products liability claims received welcome support from a Pennsylvania appellate court which rejected an


Pennsylvania court holds drywall claims arose out of single occurrence
  • Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
  • USA
  • February 19 2013

In its recent decision in Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Devon International, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20659 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2013), the United States


Are you covered for food product recalls?
  • McGuireWoods LLP
  • USA
  • April 2 2014

Food product recalls, whether the result of misbranding, adulteration or another source, are showing no signs of slowing down. According to


Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules That Inclusion of Defective Ingredient Does Not Constitute Property Damage
  • Gordon & Rees LLP
  • USA
  • April 7 2016

In Wisconsin Pharmacal Co., LLC v. Nebraska Cultures of California, Inc., et al., 2016 Wisc. LEXIS 12 (March 1, 2016), the Wisconsin Supreme Court in


Cyber attacks on smart devices: get smart
  • Kennedys Law LLP
  • European Union, USA
  • March 2 2016

We consider the potential product liability implications of cyber attacks on smart devices. In the hit film 'Kingsman: The Secret Service', a British


Bed Bug Bill Bounces: Pesticides Called Pollution!
  • Gordon & Rees LLP
  • USA
  • March 3 2016

The Vermont Supreme Court recently held that the plain language interpretation of a pollution exclusion in a homeowner policy barred coverage for


Pennsylvania Supreme Court declines to review pro-policyholder decision; contrary arguments possible
  • McCarter & English LLP
  • USA
  • October 20 2014

Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to review the pro-policyholder decision on insurers' duty to defend manufacturing claims, the