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 993

Court finds coverage for consequential damages arising from product recall
  • Gray Plant Mooty
  • USA
  • January 16 2013

A Minnesota Federal District Court Judge recently ruled that the insured is entitled to defense and indemnification under its commercial liability

Exterminating Coverage Under a Pesty Pollution Exclusion: Vermont Supreme Court Denies Coverage for Pesticide Contamination
  • Gordon & Rees LLP
  • USA
  • March 9 2016

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

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

Insurance coverage for food and beverage contamination claims and recalls
  • King & Spalding LLP
  • USA
  • September 4 2012

Damages owed from illness and death claims resulting from actual or alleged food and beverage contamination, along with the cost of recalls of potentially contaminated products, present serious financial risk to companies involved in the manufacture or sale of food products

More Essential Than Ever: Insurance In Food Co. M&A
  • McGuireWoods LLP
  • USA
  • March 31 2016

Crystal ball gazing aside, various micro and macroeconomic trends suggest that the hot merger and acquisition market in the food and beverage

California court holds product contamination insurance does not cover ingredients contaminated by insured’s supplier
  • Cozen O'Connor
  • USA
  • March 18 2015

On February 6th, an intermediate level California appellate court held that a product contamination policy only covered contamination that occurs

Top reasons the JPML has denied centralization of products liability and salesmarketing cases
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • July 9 2014

Since May 2011, here are the most-cited reasons the JPML has denied Section 1407 centralization of products liability and salesmarketing cases: The

Eleventh Circuit reverses decision to exclude plaintiff’s experts
  • Jenner & Block LLP
  • USA
  • April 19 2013

In United Fire & Casualty Co. v. Whirlpool Corp., 704 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2013) (No. 11-15011), the plaintiff insurer brought this appeal from the

Class action round-up - spring 2014
  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • USA
  • May 22 2014

In a mortgage-related row, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Central District of California’s grant of summary judgment in favor of several bank

Asbestos liability: Appeals Court of Massachusetts reverses grant of summary judgment based on causation of two friction defendants; upholds summary judgment of friction defendant
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • March 15 2011

On March 14, 2011, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts reversed the Superior Court’s (J. Charles J. Hely) grant of summary judgment for defendants Autozone Northeast, Inc. (“Autozone”) and Orleans Auto Supply, Inc