UPDATE. Insurance Coverage
|
|
- Isabel Sparks
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 UPDATE Insurance Coverage MARCH 2003 The Insurance Coverage Risks Involved in Corporate Asset Transfers A Review of the California Supreme Court s Henkel Decision INTRODUCTION Acquisitions of businesses or product lines are often accomplished through asset purchase and sale agreements. In some instances, internal restructurings are accomplished through asset transfers. A recent California Supreme Court decision, Henkel Corporation v. Lloyd s of London, 1 illustrates the perils such asset agreements may pose for a purchaser that is liable for claims arising out of the historical operations of the seller. In sum, Henkel Corporation was liable for long-tail chemical exposure claims arising out of products made by a business, the assets of which Henkel purchased years after the underlying claimants were injured. Yet the California Supreme Court held that Henkel had no rights to the historical liability insurance policies of the seller that covered the seller s products and operations during the relevant years. Significantly, Henkel was faced with these uninsured liabilities by virtue of a pre-acquisition restructuring transaction by its seller, a transaction to which the historical insurers were not requested (as the court ruled they should have been) to consent. While Henkel will obviously be of interest in ongoing and future insurance coverage disputes, the decision should also command the careful attention of corporate counsel. The decision, for example, could have important implications for the allocation of risk in pending and future asset transactions. Furthermore, corporations undertaking internal reorganizations through asset transactions should take note of the decision to ensure that their internal transactions do not have unintended insurance consequences. Finally, depending upon the circumstances, past transactions (particularly internal ones) may warrant reexamination and possible amendment in light of the Henkel decision. After presenting a brief overview of the Henkel decision, therefore, we offer some considerations for corporations and their counsel in connection with pending and historical asset transactions. BACKGROUND Corporate asset acquisitions are often desirable because they can afford the buyer in some situations the opportunity to acquire the assets of a business free from its historical liabilities. Transaction dynamics, however, may require a buyer to assume liabilities voluntarily in certain transactions. Further, after a transaction, some purchasers may find themselves deemed by operation of law to be a successor to the liabilities of the seller or otherwise liable for the liabilities arising out of historical operations. 2 Finally, in internal restructurings, where businesses are being segregated for purposes of sales, for example, liabilities also may be expressly assumed. In all of these cases, purchaser liability raises the question of whether the purchaser may access historic insurance policies that covered the operations of the seller. 1 Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., No. S098242, 2003 Cal. LEXIS 873, at *2 (Cal. 2003). 2 E.g., Ray v. Alad, 560 P.2d 3 (1977) (holding that successor was liable for defective product of predecessor); Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 89 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 1996) (holding that successor and predecessor were jointly and severally liable for CERCLA cleanup).
2 In Henkel, this question arose in the specific context of liabilities assumed by contract (i.e., in an asset purchase agreement), and the decision was expressly limited to the context of a contractual assumption of liabilities and transfer of assets. The case involved a series of complicated transactions, but the relevant one for the insurance coverage issue was the contractual separation of two product lines of what was then a wholly-owned subsidiary of Union Carbide Corporation. Union Carbide acquired Amchem Products, Inc., which manufactured and sold agricultural and metallic chemicals, in After Union Carbide acquired it in 1979, Amchem Products, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation ( Amchem No. 1 ), created a new Delaware corporation of the same name ( Amchem No. 2 ). 3 Amchem No. 1 then transferred all of its rights, title and interest in and to its domestic assets utilized in its metalworking business to Amchem No The board of Amchem No. 2 unanimously accepted Amchem No. 1 s transfer of assets, liabilities and goodwill utilized in its metalworking chemical activities. 5 The Henkel court treated the 1979 resolutions as a contract between Amchem No. 1 and No. 2. Henkel Corporation ultimately became the successor to Amchem No. 2 by its 1980 acquisition of all of Amchem No. 2 s stock and the subsequent merger of the two entities. Amchem No. 1 s successor was Rhone Poulenc, Inc., by virtue of its purchase of the stock of Amchem No. 1 in 1986 and the 1992 merger of Rhone Poulenc and Amchem No These transactions set the stage for the question of which entity or entities, Henkel, Rhone Poulenc, or both, could claim the benefits of the historical insurance assets of Amchem Products, Inc. for liabilities arising out of the historical metalworking chemical operations. Claims arising out of those operations were asserted in a suit brought in 1989 by current and former Lockheed employees against Henkel and Amchem Products, Inc. The Lockheed plaintiffs alleged injuries arising out of exposure to metallic chemicals between The reference to Amchem Products, Inc. did not make clear whether Amchem No. 1 or Amchem No. 2 was the intended target of the lawsuit, but the plaintiffs did not serve Rhone Poulenc (i.e., the successor to Amchem No. 1) until 1992, some three years after they filed suit. Henkel tendered its defense to the insurers that issued policies to Amchem No. 1 during , as well as to its own insurers. All denied coverage. After the plaintiffs served Rhone Poulenc, it moved to quash service. The plaintiffs ultimately agreed to Rhone Poulenc s motion, because they were presented with documents that established that Henkel was answerable for the metalworking chemical liabilities at issue. Rhone Poulenc was therefore no longer a defendant, and Henkel ultimately settled with the Lockheed plaintiffs for $7.65 million in 1995 and sued the insurers for declaratory relief. 8 Because of Henkel s merger with Amchem No. 2, the trial court found that Henkel was responsible for all of Amchem No. 2 s liabilities, including those assumed from Amchem No. 1 in the 1979 asset acquisition. 9 Henkel contended that along with the liabilities, Amchem No. 2 also acquired assets, including insurance coverage for the liabilities. The trial court disagreed, ruling that any assignment of Amchem No. 1 s policies would be void without the insurers consent and entered summary judgment against Henkel. 10 The court of appeal reversed, holding that the right to indemnity followed the liability rather than the policy itself. Therefore, because Amchem No. 2 acquired the liabilities of Amchem No. 1, it also acquired the insurance policies covering such liabilities. The decision was based, in part, upon Northern Insurance Co. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co., which held that even though the parties did not assign [the predecessor insurance] policy in the agreement, the right to indemnity under the policy transferred to [the successor corporation] by operation of law Henkel, 2003 Cal. LEXIS 873, at * Id. at *4. 5 Id. 6 Id. at *5. 7 Id. 8 Id. at * Id. at * Id. at *8. 11 Id. at *8, (quoting Northern Insurance Co. v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 955 F.2d 1353, 1357 (9th Cir. 1993)). 2 KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART LLP INSURANCE COVERAGE UPDATE
3 THE SUPREME COURT DECISION The California Supreme Court characterized Henkel s principal arguments as follows: first, that insurance coverage should follow liability when liability is imposed by operation of law; 12 and, second, that policy benefits under occurrence policies may be assigned without insurer consent once the events giving rise to the liability have taken place. 13 The court rejected both arguments. Was Liability Imposed by Law? Turning to the first, the court outlined three circumstances by which liability may be imposed on an asset purchaser by operation of law. If Henkel s situation fell within any of the three categories, then the question of whether or not insurance coverage followed the liability as a matter of law would be presented. The court did not reach this question, however, because it found that liability was not imposed by operation of law. First, the court noted that an asset purchaser may be subjected to liability under three broad criteria that focus upon the transaction itself: (1) when the transaction amounts to a consolidation or merger of the two corporations; (2) when the purchasing corporation is a mere continuation of the seller; or (3) when the transfer of assets is for the fraudulent purpose of escaping liability. 14 Reviewing each prong of this test briefly, the court found that none of these situations applied to Henkel. Second, the court noted that a company that acquires a product line may be held liable as a matter of law for injuries caused by its predecessor s defective products if the injured party has no remedies against the original company. 15 The court ruled this exception inapplicable as well, because Rhone Poulenc, as the successor to Amchem No. 1, could respond to any suit based on pre-1979 toxic exposure. Further, it ruled that even if Amchem No. 1 dissolved after the transfer of the metallic division to Amchem No. 2, under California law a plaintiff still could assert a claim against Amchem No. 1 for the purpose of accessing its liability policies. 16 Third, the court noted some statutes, including CERCLA, 17 impose liability as a matter of law on successor corporations without regard to contract. No such statute existed with regard to the liabilities at issue in the underlying suit. In sum, the court ruled that Amchem No. 2 assumed the liabilities of Amchem No. 1 voluntarily by contract and was not subjected to the imposition of the liabilities by operation of law. 18 Because none of the criteria for imposition of liabilities as a matter of law applied, the court did not address the important question presented in such cases of whether or not insurance rights also are transferred as a matter of law to the deemed successor. 19 Was Insurer Consent Required? Having concluded that Amchem No. 2 assumed by contract the historical liabilities at issue in the Lockheed plaintiffs suit, the court ruled that Henkel s rights, as successor to Amchem No. 2, to any benefits under the insurance policies depend on the terms of the 1979 contract by which Amchem No. 2 acquired the assets of Amchem No Although ruling that the question was a contractual one, the court did not address whether or not the broad asset transfer language set forth in the board resolutions that formed the basis of the contract between Amchem No. 1 and Amchem No. 2 were intended to transfer insurance policy rights. It reached this conclusion by ruling that any contractual assignment would be invalid because it lacked the insurer s consent. 21 The court held that a policy provision purporting to prohibit assignment of interest under the policy without the insurer s consent endorsed on the policy 22 was effective to preclude the assignment. In doing so, the court rejected Henkel s argument that insurer consent was unnecessary for several reasons Henkel, 2003 Cal. LEXIS 873, at *9. 13 Id. at * Id. at * Id. at * Id. at * Id. at *12; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601, et seq. (2002). 18 Henkel, 2003 Cal. LEXIS 873, at * Northern Insurance Co. v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 955 F.2d 1353, (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that a successor has the rights to a predecessor s policies, including a defense, after liabilities have been imposed by law). 20 Henkel, 2003 Cal. LEXIS 873, at * Id. at * Id. 23 Id. at * MARCH 2003
4 Henkel initially argued that consent was not necessary because the insurance rights were transferred to it as a matter of law; as noted above, the court rejected this argument. In addition, Henkel argued that insurer consent was not necessary because policy benefits under occurrence-based policies may be assigned without consent after the event giving rise to the liability has occurred. In considering this argument, the court noted the general principle that contractual and legal prohibitions on assignment do not preclude the assignment of money due or to become due under a contract or assignment of claims for breach thereof. The court ruled, however, that even if the general principle applied to liability insurance policies, it did not apply to the circumstances of the Henkel case. In rejecting Henkel s argument, the court reasoned that Amchem No. 2 assumed Amchem No. 1 s liabilities before the duty to defend and indemnify the claims of the Lockheed plaintiffs became an assignable chose in action. The claims had not been reduced to a sum of money due, and the court reasoned that there was not a wrongful failure to defend or indemnify the Lockheed plaintiffs claims prior to the 1979 transaction, because the claims had not yet been asserted. Thus, the court ruled that the right to defense and indemnity for the Lockheed plaintiffs claim could not be assigned without the insurers consent. Henkel also argued that assignment of the policies, even without insurer consent, would not place an additional risk on the insurers. Since the claims involved the risks contemplated by the insurers upon the issuance of the policies, Henkel contended that the assignment would not affect either the liability of the insurers, or the policy limits. The court disagreed, stating that an additional burden might arise if the predecessor corporation still existed or could be sued. In such cases, the court argued that an insurer might be faced with the costly task of defending both the predecessor and successor corporations. 24 Further, the court suggested that the mere dispute over which party was covered may also create an additional burden for the insured. Because of these perceived additional burdens, the court rejected the argument that consent was not necessary. 25 The Dissent The Henkel ruling provoked a spirited dissent, albeit by a single justice. According to the dissent, the majority failed to recognize and follow California case law that permits the assignment of insurance coverage after a loss has occurred. 26 Further, the dissent argued that the majority mischaracterized the nature of a chose in action. According to the California Civil Code, a chose in action is defined as a right to recover money or other personal property by a judicial proceeding. 27 The dissent reasoned that a chose in action is not, as the majority stated, a claim reduced to a monetary judgment. Further, the dissent disagreed with the majority s contention that an assignment of the policy resulted in greater liability for the insurer. To the contrary, an insurer s risk cannot be increased by a change in the insured s identity. 28 Because liability is fixed (in an occurrence policy) when the event giving rise to the injury occurs, an assignment of the policy to another entity after the event cannot give rise to greater liability. 29 Quoting Northern Insurance, the dissent stated: [w]hen the loss occurs before the transfer, however, the characteristics of the successor are of little importance: regardless of any transfer, the insurer still covers only the risk it evaluated when it wrote the policy. 30 Under the dissent s view, liability could not, as the majority contended, be increased if the predecessor still existed, because any right to the policy would have been transferred to the successor. IMPLICATIONS OF THE HENKEL DECISION Henkel has a number of important implications for transactions involving asset acquisitions Id. at * Id. at * Id. at * Id. at *25-26, (quoting Cal. Civ. Code 953 (2003)). 28 Id. at * Id. at * Id. at *31-32, citations omitted. 31 Of course, as with any transaction, the particular circumstances of the deal may render some or all of these suggestions inapplicable. Furthermore, other aspects of the transaction may outweigh consideration of these insurance issues. 4 KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART LLP INSURANCE COVERAGE UPDATE
5 If deal dynamics require the assumption of a seller s liabilities, there is no clear path (if Henkel applies) for the buyer clearly to acquire the seller s insurance rights without insurer consent. There may, however, be creative ways to increase the possibility that a buyer would obtain the benefit of historical insurance assets. One such possibility may include a transaction under which: (i) the buyer assumes the seller s uninsured liabilities; (ii) the buyer agrees to advance funds for insured liabilities; (iii) the buyer s advancement of funds for the insured liabilities would be subject to a right to recover from the seller any insurance coverage proceeds the seller obtains from its historical insurers; and (iv) the buyer agrees to fund, and has the right to control, the pursuit of that historical insurance coverage. Purchasers of a business, even where stock is being acquired, should perform careful due diligence regarding prior internal transactions to determine whether (as in Henkel) a corporation being purchased had earlier assumed liabilities for which historical insurance assets may not be available. that could result in the assumption of liabilities but not the transfer of insurance rights. A review of historical transactions that may have negative insurance implications for the purpose of potential corrective amendments may be in order. Finally, corporations should not assume that the rule articulated in Henkel will necessarily apply outside of California. Courts have taken conflicting approaches to the issue in Henkel and to related disputes regarding a successor s rights to the insurance coverage of a predecessor. 32 A corporation s perspective on Henkel in insurance coverage disputes will obviously vary depending upon whether it retained insurance rights or whether it may find itself without insurance rights it believed it possessed. For pending and future transactions, however, the decision clearly suggests that the asset buyer who assumes historical liabilities should carefully consider how best to reduce the risk of not acquiriing the benefits of the corresponding historical insurance policies. Corporations should consider carefully the insurance implications of internal restructurings DAVID F. MCGONIGLE dmcgonigle@kl.com The Insurance Coverage practice group at Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP is one of the nation s largest policyholderoriented practices. Its attorneys have authored Policyholder s Guide to the Law of Insurance Coverage and currently edit the Journal of Insurance Coverage. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION about these issues, please consult any of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart s office contacts listed below: Boston John M. Edwards jedwards@kl.com Dallas Robert Everett Wolin rwolin@kl.com Harrisburg Raymond P. Pepe rpepe@kl.com Los Angeles David P. Schack dschack@kl.com Miami Daniel A. Casey dcasey@kl.com Newark Anthony P. La Rocco alarocco@kl.com New York Peter J. Kalis pkalis@kl.com Pittsburgh Peter J. Kalis pkalis@kl.com San Francisco Edward P. Sangster esangster@kl.com Washington Matthew L. Jacobs mjacobs@kl.com MEGHAN L. DAUGHERTY mdaugherty@kl.com D.F. McGonigle, Long-Tail Successor Liability and the Right to Access a Predecessor s Insurance Coverage: Conflicting Responses from California Courts, J. of Ins. Coverage, Vol. 4, No. 4, 71, 77 (Autumn 2001). The article refers to Gopher Oil Co. v. Amer. Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 588 N.W.2d 756 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999) which holds that a successor is entitled to coverage under a predecessor s policy. However, the article also makes reference to Red Arrow Products Co., Inc. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 607 N.W.2d 294 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000) in which the court denies coverage to the successor because they were neither a party to the original insurance contract, nor an assignee of the policy. See also B.S.B. Diversified Co., Inc. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 947 F. Supp. 1476, 1482 (W.D. Wash. 1996) (holding that a contractual sale of assets is an effective transfer of both liabilities and insurance coverage). Challenge us. BOSTON DALLAS HARRISBURG LOS ANGELES MIAMI NEWARK NEW YORK PITTSBURGH SAN FRANCISCO WASHINGTON... This publication/newsletter is for informational purposes and does not contain or convey legal advice. The information herein should not be used or relied upon in regard to any particular facts or circumstances without first consulting a lawyer KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center
The following article is from National Underwriter s latest online resource, FC&S Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center. The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center BETTER LATE THAN NEVER:
More informationHenkel Corp v. Hartford Accident
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-27-2008 Henkel Corp v. Hartford Accident Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-4856 Follow
More informationIn Corporate Transactions will the Insurance Follow
In Corporate Transactions will the Insurance Follow the liabilities? b y M i c h a e l H. G i n s b e r g a n d I a n F. L u p s o n Companies buying and selling corporate assets and subsidiaries often
More informationSupreme Court of California
Page 1 Supreme Court of California HENKEL CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. S098242. Feb. 3, 2003. As Modified Feb.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS NO. 13-1006 IN RE ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, RELATOR ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS PER CURIAM Rafael Zuniga sued San Diego Tortilla (SDT) for personal injuries and then added
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-12-01365-CV
REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed April 3, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01365-CV UNITED MEDICAL SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Appellant V. ANSELL HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS,
More informationState v. Continental Insurance Company
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Fall 2012 Case Summaries State v. Continental Insurance Company John M. Newman john.newman@umontana.edu Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/plrlr
More informationFORC QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF INSURANCE LAW AND REGULATION
The plaintiff in Schmidt filed suit against her employer, Personalized Audio Visual, Inc. ("PAV") and PAV s president, Dennis Smith ("Smith"). 684 A.2d at 68. Her Complaint alleged several causes of action
More informationFluor Corp. v. Superior Court: California Supreme
MEALEY S TM LITIGATION REPORT Insurance Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court: California Supreme Court Holds Insurance Assignments Are Permissible Absent Insurer Consent In Landmark Ruling For Policyholders by
More informationAsbestos Liabilities: Jones Act Damages Limitations Should Be Extended To Nonemployer Product Supplier Defendants
Asbestos Liabilities: Jones Act Damages Limitations Should Be Extended To Nonemployer Product Supplier Defendants Chris M. Temple ctemple@klng.com 412.355.6343 y Jeffrey N. Kinsey jkinsey@klng.com 412.355.8231
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION JOHN FRAZIER HUNT, : DECEMBER TERM, 2004 Plaintiff, : No. 2742 v. : (Commerce Program) NATIONAL
More informationPennsylvania Superior Court Renders Pro-Policyholder Decision on Primary Insurer s Attempt to Obtain Reimbursement of Defense Costs
Pennsylvania Superior Court Renders Pro-Policyholder Decision on Primary Insurer s Attempt to Obtain Reimbursement of Defense Costs By: Paul E. Del Vecchio* K&L Gates Henry W. Oliver Building 535 Smithfield
More informationIn The NO. 14-98-00234-CV. UNITED STATES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Appellant
Affirmed and Opinion filed January 13, 2000. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-98-00234-CV UNITED STATES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Appellant V. UNDERWRITERS AT INTEREST and STEVEN RICHARD BISHOP,
More informationMeet Your New Insured: Successors Rights to Insurance Assets in Corporate Transactions
Meet Your New Insured: Successors Rights to Insurance Assets in Corporate Transactions by Tom Baker, John Buchanan, and Marianna Horton 1 h Tom Baker is the Connecticut Mutual Professor of Law and the
More informationHow To Decide If A Judgment Against A Man Is Valid
THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION THE MOUNTBATTEN SURETY COMPANY, INC. : October Term, 2001 Plaintiff, : v. : No. 3341 LANDMARK
More informationPENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. JOHN D. ST. JOHN, et al., Defendants NO. 09-06388
Page 1 PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. JOHN D. ST. JOHN, et al., Defendants NO. 09-06388 COMMON PLEAS COURT OF CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2011 Pa. Dist. & Cnty.
More informationCase 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION JAMES E. TOMLINSON and DARLENE TOMLINSON, his wife, v. Plaintiffs,
More informationClient Alert. Powerine II Significant Insurance Coverage Implications for Administrative Cleanup Costs. Insurance Recovery. Environmental Litigation
Powerine II Significant Insurance Coverage Implications for Administrative Cleanup Costs by Stewart S. Harrison Insurance Recovery Environmental Litigation In welcome news to umbrella policyholders, the
More informationTHE RIGHT TO INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
THE RIGHT TO INDEPENDENT COUNSEL Julie A. Shehane Cooper & Scully, P.C. 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Telephone: 214-712 712-9546 Telecopy: 214-712 712-9540 Email: Julie.Shehane@cooperscully.com 2015 This
More informationCUNDIFF V. STATE FARM: ALLOWING DOUBLE RECOVERY UNDER UIM COVERAGE
CUNDIFF V. STATE FARM: ALLOWING DOUBLE RECOVERY UNDER UIM COVERAGE AND WORKERS COMPENSATION Melissa Healy INTRODUCTION In Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the Arizona Supreme Court
More informationCOMMENTARY. California s New Subcontractor Defense Regime for Non-Residential Projects: Creating Order or Chaos?
May 2013 JONES DAY COMMENTARY California s New Subcontractor Defense Regime for Non-Residential Projects: Creating Order or Chaos? As explained in a recent Commentary (available at http://www.jonesday.com/navigating_treacherous_
More informationRESIDENTIAL LIMITED COVERAGE MORTGAGE MODIFICATION POLICY Issued By WFG NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
RESIDENTIAL LIMITED COVERAGE MORTGAGE MODIFICATION POLICY Issued By WFG NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Any notice of claim and any other notice or statement in writing required to be given to the Company
More informationConstruction Defect Action Reform Act
COLORADO REVISED STATUTES Title 13. Courts and Court Procedure Damages Regulation of Actions and Proceedings Article 20. Actions Part 8. Construction Defect Actions for Property Loss and Damage Construction
More informationCase 2:09-cv-00532-JPH Document 23 Filed 02/02/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:09-cv-00532-JPH Document 23 Filed 02/02/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL WALKER : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : NO. 09-532 BIG BURGER RESTAURANTS,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. No. 4:01 CV 726 DDN VENETIAN TERRAZZO, INC., Defendant. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Pursuant
More informationPending before the Court in the above-entitled matter are Plaintiff s motion for
Case 1:08-cv-00225-EJL-CWD Document 34 Filed 03/02/10 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE STATE OF IDAHO OREGON MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff, Case No.
More informationFrom GCL to E&O, With a Bit of D&O:
From GCL to E&O, With a Bit of D&O: Getting the Most Out of Your Insurance Coverage David R. McDonald, Partner Nossaman Guthner Knox & Elliott LLP 50 California Street, 34 th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111
More informationFOR PROPERTY LOSS AND DAMAGE 1
13-20-801. Short title Colorado Revised Statutes Title 13; Article 20; Part 8: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT ACTIONS FOR PROPERTY LOSS AND DAMAGE 1 This part 8 shall be known and may be cited as the Construction
More informationuninsured/underinsured motorist ( UM or UIM respectively) coverage of $100,000 per claimant. Under the Atkinson policy,
PRESENT: All the Justices LENNA JO DYER OPINION BY v. Record No. 031532 JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE APRIL 23, 2004 DAIRYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Herbert C. Gill,
More informationCase 3:09-cv-01222-MMH-JRK Document 33 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
Case 3:09-cv-01222-MMH-JRK Document 33 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION PHL VARIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 3:09-cv-1222-J-34JRK
More informationTENDERING CLAIMS UNDER YOUR CGL INSURANCE POLICY By Nick M. Campbell, Esq. GREEN & CAMPBELL, LLP. A. History of Commercial Liability Policies
TENDERING CLAIMS UNDER YOUR CGL INSURANCE POLICY By Nick M. Campbell, Esq. GREEN & CAMPBELL, LLP Please note that this article is only intended to provide some general educational information regarding
More informationPresent: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice NORTHBROOK PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY OPINION BY JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, v. Record No. 951919 September
More informationCase 6:12-cv-00914-RBD-TBS Document 136 Filed 07/16/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID 4525
Case 6:12-cv-00914-RBD-TBS Document 136 Filed 07/16/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID 4525 TROVILLION CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, INC.; and CASA JARDIN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Huizenga v. Auto-Owners Insurance, 2014 IL App (3d) 120937 Appellate Court Caption DAVID HUIZENGA and BRENDA HUIZENGA, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 13-15213 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-00238-GRJ.
Case: 13-15213 Date Filed: 06/17/2014 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 13-15213 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-00238-GRJ
More informationPennsylvania Law on Advertising Injury
Pennsylvania Law on Advertising Injury Summary of Cases Atlantic Mutual Insurance v. Brotech Corp., 857 F. Supp. 423 (E.D. Pa. 1994), aff'd, 60 F.3d 813, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 15297 (3d Cir. May 12, 1995)
More informationInsurance Coverage. English Court Rejects Solvent Scheme of Arrangement Proposed by British Aviation Insurance Company Limited
SEPTEMBER 2005 Insurance Coverage English Court Rejects Solvent Scheme of Arrangement Proposed by British Aviation Insurance Company Limited INTRODUCTION In response to objections filed by a group of policyholders
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Certain Underwriters at Lloyd s London v. The Burlington Insurance Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 141408 Appellate Court Caption CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD S LONDON,
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, DEFENDANT.
2000 WI App 171 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 99-0776 Complete Title of Case: RONNIE PROPHET AND BADON PROPHET, V. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY, INC.,
More informationObtaining Indemnity Through Effective Tender Letters
Page 1 of 5 Portfolio Media. Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Obtaining Indemnity Through Effective
More informationBy Heather Howell Wright, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP. (Published July 24, 2013 in Insurance Coverage, by the ABA Section Of Litigation)
Tiara Condominium: The Demise of the Economic Loss Rule in Construction Defect Litigation and Impact on the Property Damage Requirement in a General Liability Policy By Heather Howell Wright, Bradley Arant
More informationCase 0:06-cv-00167-JNE Document 30 Filed 05/25/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Case 0:06-cv-00167-JNE Document 30 Filed 05/25/2006 Page 1 of 9 OneBeacon America Insurance Company, Appellant, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA v. Civ. No. 06-167 (JNE) ORDER A.P.I.,
More informationHow To Defend Yourself In A Court Case Against A Trust
U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ENTERED TAWANA C. MARSHALL, CLERK THE DATE OF ENTRY IS ON THE COURT'S DOCKET The following constitutes the order of the Court. Signed January 20, 2005.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED August 20, 2015 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Appellee, v No. 320710 Oakland Circuit Court YVONNE J. HARE,
More information2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U Order
More information****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ----
Filed 5/16/13; pub. order 6/12/13 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ---- STEVE SCHAEFER, Plaintiff and Respondent, C068229 (Super.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. Israel : : v. : No. 3:98cv302(JBA) : State Farm Mutual Automobile : Insurance Company et al.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Israel : : v. : No. 3:98cv302(JBA) : State Farm Mutual Automobile : Insurance Company et al. : Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #82] After
More informationA&E Briefings. Indemnification Clauses: Uninsurable Contractual Liability. Structuring risk management solutions
A&E Briefings Structuring risk management solutions Spring 2012 Indemnification Clauses: Uninsurable Contractual Liability J. Kent Holland, J.D. ConstructionRisk, LLC Professional consultants are judged
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Pekin Insurance Co. v. Rada Development, LLC, 2014 IL App (1st) 133947 Appellate Court Caption PEKIN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RADA DEVELOPMENT,
More informationIN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT
2016 IL App (1st) 150810-U Nos. 1-15-0810, 1-15-0942 cons. Fourth Division June 30, 2016 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in
More informationNew Hampshire Association for Justice Focus on Workers Compensation Law
New Hampshire Association for Justice Focus on Workers Compensation Law Bedford, NH March 18, 2011 By: Andrew J. Reinhardt Reinhardt & Harper, PLC 1809 Staples Mill Road, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23230 Phone:
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION 2002 WI App 237 Case No.: 02-0261 Complete Title of Case: KENNETH A. FOLKMAN, SR., DEBRA J. FOLKMAN AND KENNETH A. FOLKMAN, JR., Petition for Review filed.
More informationIN THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2015 MTWCC 13. WCC No. 2015-3545 CAR WERKS, LLC. Petitioner. vs. UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND
IN THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2015 MTWCC 13 WCC No. 2015-3545 CAR WERKS, LLC Petitioner vs. UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND Respondent/Third Party Petitioner vs. JAMES E. GAWRONSKI
More informationTHIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF DYNEGY INC. Pursuant to Section 303 of the Delaware General Corporation Law
THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF DYNEGY INC. Pursuant to Section 303 of the Delaware General Corporation Law Dynegy Inc., a corporation duly organized and validly existing under
More informationHow To Get Money Back From A Fall And Fall Case
Case 2:14-cv-00797-BMS Document 16 Filed 02/06/15 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA AMERICAN WESTERN : HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff,
More informationThe Insurance Coverage Law Information Center
The following article is from National Underwriter s latest online resource, FC&S Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center. The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN-UP
More information2012 WI APP 17 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION
2012 WI APP 17 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 2011AP2 Petition for Review Filed Complete Title of Case: ARTISAN & TRUCKERS CASUALTY CO. AND PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
More informationCase 3:13-cv-00054 Document 120 Filed in TXSD on 05/04/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION ORDER
Case 3:13-cv-00054 Document 120 Filed in TXSD on 05/04/15 Page 1 of 7 This case is being reviewed for possible publication by American Maritime Cases, Inc. ( AMC ). If this case is published in AMC s book
More informationAppendix I: Select Federal Legislative. Proposals Addressing Compensation for Asbestos-Related Harms or Death
Appendix I: Select Legislative Appendix I: Select Federal Legislative is and Mesothelioma Benefits Act H.R. 6906, 93rd 1973). With respect to claims for benefits filed before December 31, 1974, would authorize
More informationCalifornia Civil Code 2782.05
California Civil Code 2782.05 (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), provisions, clauses, covenants, and agreements contained in, collateral to, or affecting any construction contract and amendments
More informationKeyspan Gas E. Corp. v Munich Reins. Am., Inc. 2014 NY Slip Op 24306. Supreme Court, New York County. Scarpulla, J.
[*1] Keyspan Gas E. Corp. v Munich Reins. Am., Inc 2014 NY Slip Op 24306 Decided on October 14, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Scarpulla, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant
More informationENFIELD PIZZA PALACE, INC., ET AL. v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF GREATER NEW YORK (AC 19268)
SCHALLER, J. The plaintiffs 2 appeal from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Insurance Company of Greater New York, in this declaratory judgment action concerning a dispute about the defendant
More informationPersonal Property Title Insurance Owner s Policy (PPT-1)
Personal Property Title Insurance (PPT-1) Any notice of claim and any other notice or statement in writing required to be given to the Company under this Policy must be given to the Company at the address
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE ) Arizona Supreme Court COMPANY, a Wisconsin corporation, ) No. CV-11-0324-CQ ) Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, ) United States ) District
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-60119 Document: 00512554303 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT GARY CHENEVERT, v. Plaintiff Appellee United States Court of Appeals Fifth
More informationIS SELF-INSURANCE REALLY INSURANCE? UM AND PIP COVERAGE OBLIGATIONS FOR SELF-INSURERS
IS SELF-INSURANCE REALLY INSURANCE? UM AND PIP COVERAGE OBLIGATIONS FOR SELF-INSURERS By Teena Killian and John Fetters The SIRMon, Winter 2009 ABA Tort, Trial and Insurance Practice Section Self-Insurers
More informationSTATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A07-784. Court of Appeals Meyer, J. Took no part, Page and Gildea, JJ.
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A07-784 Court of Appeals Meyer, J. Took no part, Page and Gildea, JJ. In re Continental Casualty Company and Continental Insurance Company, Petitioners. Continental
More informationDefenses in a Product Liability Claim
Defenses in a Product Liability Claim written by: Mark Schultz, Esq. COZEN O CONNOR Suite 400, 200 Four Falls Corporate Center West Conshohocken, PA 19428 (800) 379-0695 (610) 941-5400 mschultz@cozen.com
More informationRECOGNIZING BAD FAITH CASES
RECOGNIZING BAD FAITH CASES Michael J. Mohlman Smith Coonrod Mohlman, LLC 7001 W. 79th Street Overland Park, KS 66204 Telephone: (913) 495-9965; Facsimile: (913) 894-1686 mike@smithcoonrod.com www.smithcoonrod.com
More informationcase 1:11-cv-00399-JTM-RBC document 35 filed 11/29/12 page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION
case 1:11-cv-00399-JTM-RBC document 35 filed 11/29/12 page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION CINDY GOLDEN, Plaintiff, v. No. 1:11 CV 399 STATE FARM MUTUAL
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
REL: 12/09/2005 STATE FARM v. BROWN Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
More informationRevisiting The Duty to Defend After the Exhaustion of the Policy Limits
Revisiting The Duty to Defend After the Exhaustion of the Policy Limits Introduction The duty to defend and the duty to indemnify are distinct duties with the duty to defend wider in scope than the duty
More informationAmeron International: The California Supreme Court Breathes New Life Into Environmental Coverage Claims for California Policyholders
February 14, 2011 POLICYHOLDER OBSERVER Ameron International: The California Supreme Court Breathes New Life Into Environmental Coverage Claims for California Policyholders By Alex Lathrop and Heather
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case 0:10-cv-00772-PAM-RLE Document 33 Filed 07/13/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Ideal Development Corporation, Mike Fogarty, J.W. Sullivan, George Riches, Warren Kleinsasser,
More informationCase 1:10-cv-10170-NMG Document 38 Filed 06/15/11 Page 1 of 9. United States District Court District of Massachusetts MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Case 1:10-cv-10170-NMG Document 38 Filed 06/15/11 Page 1 of 9 WESTERN WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. JAMES CZECH and WILLIAMS BUILDING COMPANY, INC., Defendants. United States District Court
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Goodridge v. Hewlett Packard Company Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CHARLES GOODRIDGE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-07-4162 HEWLETT-PACKARD
More information29 of 41 DOCUMENTS. SAN DIEGO ASSEMBLERS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WORK COMP FOR LESS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Respondent.
Page 1 29 of 41 DOCUMENTS SAN DIEGO ASSEMBLERS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WORK COMP FOR LESS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Respondent. D062406 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 11-0425 444444444444 PETROLEUM SOLUTIONS, INC., PETITIONER, v. BILL HEAD D/B/A BILL HEAD ENTERPRISES AND TITEFLEX CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 06-3601 J.E. Jones Construction Co.; The Jones Company Custom Homes, Inc., Now known as REJ Custom Homes, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. Appeal from
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 09-20311 Document: 00511062202 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D March 25, 2010 Charles
More informationCase: 2:04-cv-01110-JLG-NMK Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/13/05 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageid>
Case: 2:04-cv-01110-JLG-NMK Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/13/05 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ALVIN E. WISEMAN, Plaintiff,
More informationFILED May 21, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL
NOTICE This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (4th 140713-U NO. 4-14-0713
More information2014 IL App (1st) 133931
2014 IL App (1st) 133931 SECOND DIVISION September 9, 2014 No. 1-13-3931 MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of ) Cook County. v. ) ) CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL DIVISION CIVIL SECTION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL DIVISION CIVIL SECTION LOUISE FOSTER Administrator of the : AUGUST TERM 2010 Estate of GEORGE FOSTER : and BARBARA DILL : vs.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM. Ludwig. J. July 9, 2010
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN M. KELLY : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : No. 09-1641 NATIONAL LIABILITY & FIRE : INSURANCE COMPANY : MEMORANDUM Ludwig. J.
More informationIn the Court of Appeals of Georgia
SECOND DIVISION BARNES, P. J., MILLER and RAY, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION 2005 WI APP 90 Case No.: 2004AP116 Petition for review filed Complete Title of Case: JOSHUA D. HANSEN, PLAINTIFF, RICHARDSON INDUSTRIES, INC., INVOLUNTARY-PLAINTIFF,
More informationIN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion)
IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) CITY OF LINCOLN V. DIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 8/20/15 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA FLUOR CORPORATION, ) ) Petitioner, ) S205889 ) v. ) ) THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ) ORANGE COUNTY, ) Ct. App. 4/3 G045579 ) Respondent; ) ) HARTFORD ACCIDENT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Filed 8/12/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR PROGRESSIVE CHOICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, B242429
More informationRE: 1562860 ONTARIO LTD. c.o.b. as SHOELESS JOE S Plaintiff v. INSURANCE PORTFOLIO INC. and CHRISTOPHER CONIGLIO. Defendants v.
COURT FILE NO.: 4022A/07 (Milton) DATE: 20090401 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: 1562860 ONTARIO LTD. c.o.b. as SHOELESS JOE S Plaintiff v. INSURANCE PORTFOLIO INC. and CHRISTOPHER CONIGLIO Defendants
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Thompson v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company et al Doc. 1 1 1 WO William U. Thompson, v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Plaintiff, Property & Casualty Insurance
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I. INTRODUCION
Case :-cv-00-rsm Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE CGI TECHNOLOGIES AND SOLUTIONS, INC., in its capacity as sponsor and fiduciary for CGI
More informationCase 8:13-cv-00295-EAK-TGW Document 145 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 5551 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:13-cv-00295-EAK-TGW Document 145 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 5551 SUMMIT CONTRACTORS, INC., Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION v. CASE NO. 8:13-CV-295-T-17TGW
More informationAgents E&O Standard of Care Project
Agents E&O Standard of Care Project Survey Maryland To gain a deeper understanding of the differing agent duties and standard of care by state, the Big I Professional Liability Program and Swiss Re Corporate
More informationS09G0492. FORTNER v. GRANGE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. We granted certiorari in this case, Fortner v. Grange Mutual Ins. Co., 294
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: October 19, 2009 S09G0492. FORTNER v. GRANGE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. NAHMIAS, Justice. We granted certiorari in this case, Fortner v. Grange Mutual Ins. Co.,
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued March 24, 2011 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-09-00838-CV EDWARD MCDONALD, Appellant V. HOME STATE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PARAGON INSURANCE COMPANY,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Filed 2/11/15 Estate of Thomson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified
More information2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT
NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227
More information