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 1,108

Notice of potential claim and reporting of claim adequate despite failure to comply with written notice requirement
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • January 21 2011

A federal court in Georgia upheld a jury verdict finding that a law firm's notice of a potential claim and its reporting of the ensuing claim were adequate notwithstanding the firm's failure to comply with the letter of the policy's notice requirements


Notice of intent to sue attorney for malpractice triggered duty to defend claim for sanctions
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • January 30 2009

Applying Pennsylvania law, a federal district court has held that a letter advising an insured attorney that his former client intended to bring suit for malpractice constituted a “claim” under a professional liability policy such that the insurer was obligated to defend pre-suit proceedings against the attorney for sanctions that had been brought by opposing counsel in the underlying action and in which the former client had joined the demand for relief


Definition of wrongful act and intentional acts exclusion bar coverage for action alleging fraud and conspiracy
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • November 14 2012

Applying Illinois law, the Appellate Court of Illinois has held, based on the policy’s definition of “wrongful act” and its intentional acts exclusion, that a professional liability insurer has no duty to defend an action alleging fraud and conspiracy


Proof of prejudice under general liability policies
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • December 18 2008

Prejudice is a factor in establishing late notice under general liability policies in the majority of jurisdictions nationwide


Notice under occurrence policies: issues beyond the prejudice debate
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • December 18 2008

This article will review key notice issues under occurrence-based policies, underscoring how multifaceted and complex the questions are that can arise when a notice defense is presented


Notice of circumstances was too general to satisfy policy
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • June 14 2007

A federal district court in Illinois has held that a policyholder failed to provide sufficient notice of circumstances that could potentially give rise to a claim to trigger coverage under a D&O policy where the policyholder informed the insurers that it was "contemplating" filing for bankruptcy and expected claims to be filed against its directors and officers


Supreme Court clarifies application of Fair Credit Reporting Act to insurance underwriting; important practical issues remain open
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • June 4 2007

Long-awaited rulings today by the U.S. Supreme Court in consolidated cases resolved crucial disputes about how the "adverse action" notifications provision of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) applies to personal lines underwriting actions


Intentional misrepresentation claim within "liable in absence of contract" carve-back to contract exclusion; fraud of VP and chief technology officer not imputed to company under severability provision
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • August 8 2013

The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island has held that a policy's contract and fraud exclusions did not bar coverage for a


When other insurance provisions conflict, standard escape provisions will not prevail over excess provisions
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • January 24 2013

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, applying Kentucky law, has found that when other insurance provisions in two policies


No coverage for claim based on officer’s ultra vires act, or breach of contract
  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • USA
  • December 12 2007

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, applying California law, has held that a construction company is not entitled to coverage under its D&O policy because the underlying claim sought recovery for breach of contract and was based on alleged representations by an officer made outside the scope of his authority