Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
Copyright © 2024 ALM Global, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Get alerted any time new stories match your search criteria. Create an alert to follow a developing story, keep current on a competitor, or monitor industry news.
Thank You!
Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
judge:"Steven Andrews"
court:Florida
topic:"Civil Appeals"
practicearea:Lobbying
"Steven Andrews" AND Litigation
"Steven Andrews" OR "Roger Dalton"
Litigation NOT "Roger Dalton"
"Steven Andrews" AND Litigation NOT Florida
(Florida OR Georgia) judge:"Steven Andrews"
((Florida AND Georgia) OR Texas) topic:"Civil Appeals"
87 total results Advanced Search Filter This Search
Your Alert Has Been Created. You will receive email alerts daily. Edit Preferences
Commercial General Liability
Content Type
Workers Compensation and Employers Liability
This case deals with trademark infringement and coverage.
The California Supreme Court answers the question "When a third party sues an employer for the negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of an employee who intentionally injured that third party, does that suit allege an 'occurrence' under the employer's commercial general liability policy?"
The US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit has reinstated litigation filed by an insurer against its policyholder for settling a case without the insurer's permission.
The Supreme Court of Oklahoma has ruled that Oklahoma law provides immunity for reporting or providing information regarding suspected insurance fraud as long as the reporter themselves does not act fraudulently, in bad faith, in reckless disregard for the truth or with actual malice in providing the information about the fraud.
The court debated whether an underlying suit based on environmental harms committed by a commercial property owner could be considered an "occurrence" that triggered the duties of defense and indemnity.
Three strip clubs sought coverage for a state-court judgment from Princeton Excess and Surplus Lines Insurance Company.
A CGL policy's assault and battery exclusion applied despite the arguments in favor of the concurrent causation rule.
This case centers around duty to defend and indemnify an additional insured.
Maryland court holds that absolute pollution exclusion does not bar the duty to defend since it can be interpreted as ambiguous and meant to apply only to environmental pollution.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has ruled that in the following case the insurer had no duty to cover a class action lawsuit alleging that its insured had sent hundreds of thousands of ”junk faxes”, even if the insured took this action based on the belief that the recipients had agreed to receive the faxes. In handing down this decision the 11th Circuit agreed with the federal district court in Georgia.