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 23

California Appeals Court finds triable issues of material fact as to whether insured gave Lloyd's a reasonable opportunity to participate in settlement
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • May 27 2011

Earlier this month, the California Appeals Court reversed a trial court's decision in favor of Lloyd's of London that its insured did not provide Lloyd's with a reasonable opportunity to participate in settlement negotiations.


Indemnities for breach of contract - do they do what you think they do?
  • Clayton Utz
  • Australia
  • September 17 2010

The inclusion of an indemnity covering breach of contract has become increasingly common in modern construction contracts.


Claims against insurance brokers
  • RPC
  • United Kingdom
  • November 27 2009

Last week's decision in Dunlop Haywards (DHL) Limited & Others v Barbon Insurance Group Limited & Others 2009 EWHC 2900 (Comm) provides useful guidance as to the relative duties of placing and producing brokers and the extent to which negligent brokers can rely upon contributory negligence by the insured.


Court of Appeal holds that credit hire costs can be recovered
  • Kennedys Law LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • June 17 2009

A lawyer from Kennedys’ Liability Division was present when the Court of Appeal gave judgment this morning in the appeals of Copley v Lawn and Maden v Haller.


UK insurance contract law reform: Lloyd'sInstitute of International Shipping & Trade Law Symposium
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • July 3 2008

On 3 July 2008 Helen Clark attended the Institute of International Shipping & Trade Law Symposium on the prospective reform of marine and commercial insurance held at Lloyd's


California appellate court holds excess policy not triggered where settlement with primary carrier fails to exhaust primary policy limit
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • April 7 2008

A California appellate court has held that an excess carrier is not liable where the policyholder settles with the primary carrier for less than the full amount of the primary policy limit.


Dorian Drew
  • Norton Rose Fulbright

Jonathan D. Meadows
  • Harper Grey LLP

Tom S. Pick
  • Squire Patton Boggs