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"
23 total results Advanced Search Filter This Search
Your Alert Has Been Created. You will receive email alerts daily. Edit Preferences
Content Type
Commercial Auto (4)
CA 25 65 10 13 Total Bankruptcy Or Insolvency Exclusion For Acts, Errors Or Omissions Liability Coverages
CA 27 21 09 22 Abuse Or Molestation Exclusion For General Liability And Acts, Errors Or Omissions Liability Coverages
CA 27 22 09 22 Sexual Abuse Or Sexual Molestation Exclusion For General Liability And Acts, Errors Or Omissions Liability Coverages
CA 27 21 09 22 Abuse Or Molestation Exclusion For General Liability And Acts, Errors Or Omissions Liability Coverages
This ISO endorsement CA 25 63 10 13 Exclusion - Acts, Errors Or Omissions Liability Coverages can be used with the Auto Dealers Coverage Form.
This ISO endorsement CA 25 64 10 13 Exclusion Of Specified Acts, Errors Or Omissions Liability Coverages can be used with the Auto Dealers Coverage Form.
When a mistake results in damage, is there coverage for mechanical breakdown?
Summary: With an effective date of 9/1/22 ISO has made available several endorsement amendments to address abuse or molestation liability exposures…
This discussion analyzes ISO commercial auto endorsements identified in Category 27 - Additional Garage endorsements, and the single endorsement in Category 28 - Special Types.
The Illinois Supreme Court has once again corrected an error of insurance policy interpretation by the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District and held that the mechanical device exclusion in the policy in question was not ambiguous.