Articles

Results 1 to 5 of 18


Federal court refuses to “revolutionize” New York insurance law and rejects insured’s argument that routine enforcement of insurance policy consent provisions under New York law should be abandoned

USA - July 21 2015 In SI Venture Holdings LLC v. Catlin Specialty Insurance, No. 14-CV-2261, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89925 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2015), the US District Court…

Nina S. Thanawala

Missouri federal district court enforces forum selection clause

USA - September 17 2014 In Union Electric Company v. Energy Insurance Mutual Limited, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri changed its mind…

Sarah D. Gordon

Federal court applies pollution exclusion to claims under personal injury coverage

USA - September 3 2014 In Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Oxford Cleaners & Tailors, LLC, No. 1:13-12298, 2014 WL 4104169 (D. Mass. Aug. 15, 2014), the United States District…

Jessica L. Urban

Eighth Circuit holds that exclusion bars coverage for suit alleging trademark infringement

USA - April 14 2015 In Selective Ins. Co. of America v. Smart Candle, LLC, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 1345231 (8th Cir. 2015), the United States Court of Appeals for the…

Jessica I. Rothschild

New York Appellate Division rules that insured’s awareness that asbestos could cause injury was not sufficient to bar coverage under the expected or intended exclusion

USA - December 14 2012 In Union Carbide Corporation v. Affiliated FM Insurance Company, Index No. 600804/04, 2012 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8323 (N.Y. App. Div., Dec. 6, 2012), the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, unanimously affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment striking the insurer’s defense that coverage was barred because the insured “expected or intended the bodily injury claims that resulted from exposure to its asbestos products.”

John O'Connor