In Persimmon Homes Ltd v Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) Plc 2010 EWHC 1705 (Comm), the High Court ruled that dishonesty on the part of a claimant which has taken out after the event (ATE) insurance can amount to a material non-disclosure such that the insurer may avoid the policy.
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia concluded that the West Virginia Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination by an insurer in the settlement of a property claim.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently reaffirmed that jurisdiction's broad understanding of a general liability carrier's duty to defend, holding that an insurer had a duty to defend against a claim of trespass first asserted after the expiration of its policy period.
The Third Circuit recently held that an insured who, while intoxicated, allegedly attempted to shoot another person was not covered under his homeowner's insurance policies for the resulting liability, as the attempted shooting could not constitute an "accident."
In July 2009 in New Castle County in the State of Delaware, three separate plaintiffs filed civil suits against E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, Inc. (“DuPont”) alleging that their work at a DuPont textile plant in Mercedes, Argentina from 1961 to 2002 caused them to be exposed to and inhale asbestos fibers.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals recently relied upon the learned intermediary doctrine in affirming summary judgment in favor of Smithkline Beecham Corp. (“SBC”) in a lawsuit claiming that the antidepressant Paxil caused the decedent to commit suicide.
In Justin Mayhew v (1) Philip King (2) Milbank Trucks Ltd (Defendants) & Chaucer Insurance plc (Third Party and Part 20 Claimant) v Towergate Stafford Knight Company Limited & Ors Sir Edward Evans-Lombe held that a term of a settlement agreement which stated that a right to an indemnity would cease if the party with the benefit of the indemnity went into administration was contrary to the anti-deprivation principle and would be struck out.
The Court of Appeal has asked for guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union on the compatibility with Community law of a provision in the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the RTA) governing an insurer's right of recovery.
In Levicom International Holdings BV and anr v Linklaters (a firm) 2010 EWCA Civ 494, Levicom appealed against the first instance decision of Mr Justice Andrew Smith that, although Linklaters had negligently advised Levicom, Levicom had suffered no damage as a consequence because it would have proceeded in the manner that it had even if it had received non-negligent or proper advice.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently held that G.L. c. 186 15, which makes void any indemnification agreement or provision whereby a tenant is obligated to indemnify a landlord, in whole or in part, for the landlord’s own negligence, does not apply to insurance provisions in the lease agreement.