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 929

Supreme Court of Texas Rules Installation of Faulty Product Not Covered by Standard CGL Policy
  • Cozen O'Connor
  • USA
  • January 14 2016

In U.S. Metals, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., No. 14-0753, 2015 Tex. LEXIS 1081 (Tex. Dec. 4, 2015) the Supreme Court of Texas ruled that

Expect focus - volume III, Summer 2014
  • Carlton Fields
  • USA
  • September 16 2014

EXPECTFOCUS is a quarterly review of developments in the insurance and financial services industry, provided on a complimentary basis to clients and

Liquor Liability Exclusion Bars Coverage for the Four Loko Bodily Injury Lawsuits
  • Gordon & Rees LLP
  • USA
  • December 29 2015

In Phusion Projects, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co., No. 1-15-0172, 2015 Ill. App. LEXIS 942 (Ill. App. Dec. 18, 2015), the manufacturers of the

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

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

23andMe insurer claims no duty to defend company
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • August 7 2014

The insurance carrier that issued a "ProductsCompleted Operations Liability and Professional Liability Policy for Life Sciences" policy to 23andMe

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

Insurance company disputes obligation to provide diacetyl damages or defense
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • January 25 2013

A company that issued Citrus and Allied Essences Ltd. a commercial umbrella insurance policy in 2006 and 2007 has filed suit in a New York state

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

Insurer seeks declaration in coverage dispute over diacetyl litigation
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • October 7 2011

Arch Specialty Insurance Co. has filed a declaratory judgment action in a New York state court against a company identified as a distributor of food product ingredients, including the butter-flavoring chemical diacetyl