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: 11-20 of 28

Court resolves insurance coverage issues for diacetyl defendants
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • April 22 2011

A New York state court has determined that a company which made the butter flavoring chemical at issue in workplace exposure lawsuits succeeded to a predecessor's insurance coverage rights


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


Insurance policy ambiguous; broad coverage could be available for tainted peanut butter claims
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • May 6 2011

A divided Delaware Supreme Court has determined that ConAgra's insurance contract is ambiguous and therefore might provide broader coverage, with a lower "retained limit" or deductible, for claims arising out of an alleged Salmonella outbreak involving the company's peanut butter


Court finds insurer has duty to defend in GM rice lawsuits
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • June 17 2011

A federal court in Arkansas has determined that Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. has a duty to defend an agricultural cooperative in more than 170 civil lawsuits filed by rice farmers over the contamination of their conventional crops with a genetically engineered (GE) variety


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


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


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


Federal court dismisses insurance coverage action in tainted baby formula case
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • March 25 2011

A federal court in Virginia has issued an order dismissing without prejudice claims filed against two insurers by a company that makes baby formula; the parties stipulated to the dismissal after similar litigation concluded with a defense verdict following trial in state court


Deli meat maker seeks coverage from supplier’s insurance carrier
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • October 12 2012

A company whose deli meat products were allegedly contaminated by the inclusion of the Salmonella-tainted red and black pepper sold to it by a supplier has sued the supplier’s insurance company to recover damages resulting from the products’ recall