Number of Occurrences For Asbestos Claims: Not A One Size Fits All Analysis
|
|
- Alexina Watson
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 March 2007 Number of Occurrences For Asbestos Claims: Not A One Size Fits All Analysis Contributor: Linda Bondi Morrison California Illinois New Jersey New York Please note that statutes and case law vary from state to state and from time to time. This survey does not encompass all possible exceptions to statutes and it does not discuss all possible case law variations. In addition, choice of law rules may impact the result in certain cases.
2 NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES FOR ASBESTOS CLAIMS: NOT A ONE SIZE FITS ALL ANALYSIS Presented at the Nineteenth Annual Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee CLE Seminar Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee of the ABA s Section of Litigation Tucson, Arizona March 1-3, 2007 There are few issues that can impact liability in an asbestos coverage case in the same way a number of occurrences determination can. An adverse outcome for an insurer may result in liability for multiple policy limits where a policy aggregate does not apply. Conversely, for an insured, an adverse ruling may mean the payment of multiple deductibles or the availability of only one per occurrence limit instead of multiple limits. Despite a tendency to generalize number of occurrences court decisions and label jurisdictions as either single occurrence or multiple occurrence, the truth is that case law may provide limited direction when evaluating likely outcomes of a number of occurrences dispute given the intensely factual nature of the analysis required. As an initial matter, occurrence definitions and other policy language significant to a number of occurrences analysis vary greatly. Although many policies have been written on standard Insurance Services Office ( ISO ) forms and contain standard occurrence definitions, those forms have changed over time. For example, the 1966 ISO form defines occurrence as an accident, including injurious exposure to conditions, which results during the policy period in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured. Later standard form occurrence definitions include: an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured. an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions. In addition, many policies were written on manuscripted forms and contain definitions which differ from standard ISO definitions. Moreover, deemer or aggregation clauses in policies, often stated as part of the limits of liability, may further impact an analysis. A typical deemer or aggregation clause may provide that all exposure to substantially the same general conditions shall be deemed one occurrence. It may also provide that all damages arising out of one lot of goods or products prepared or acquired by the insured shall be considered as arising out of one occurrence. As is apparent from a review of court decisions on this issue, different policy language in a number of occurrence dispute may yield a dramatically different result. The same holds true when analyzing the nature of the number of occurrences dispute. With very limited exceptions, courts have generally held that where the dispute involves payment of deductibles, SIRs, or a retrospective premium, a single occurrence applies to multiple asbestos claims. This is especially true when the insured s insurance program involves very high deductibles or SIRS which extend over a long period of time. 1
3 The specific facts of the underlying claims will also influence a number of occurrences outcome. Some claims may be easier to aggregate than others. It is important to consider how the claims arose to identify common factors. Some factors to consider are: Do the claims involve exposure to products or are they non-products claims? Are single products or lines of products involved, or do exposures arise out of many different products or lines? If multiple products are involved, were they produced at or distributed from one facility, or were multiple facilities involved? If the claims are operations claims, did exposure occur at one location or were there multiple locations? Did the asbestos exposures occur generally within the same time frame, or over many years? Another consideration which may be relevant is the claims handling history of the parties. If admissible, this could reflect that the parties intended for claims to be treated in a certain manner. For example, if the insured has typically paid only one deductible for aggregated products claims in the past, this course of performance under an insurance policy may similarly support the payment of one deductible for asbestos products claims, and thus a single occurrence. Finally, the above underscores the significance of choosing an appropriate jurisdiction to resolve a number of occurrences dispute, and also having an understanding of what state s law would like apply to such a dispute. Following is a sampling of court decisions in which courts were asked to address number of occurrences in the asbestos context. As is apparent, courts have reached dramatically different outcomes based on many of the factors set forth above. Note: Any positions expressed in this article are those of the author only and may not reflect the views of the firm or its clients. 2
4 an accident, including injurious exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury neither expected not intended from the standpoint of the insured. ( policies) Air Products and Chemicals Inc. v. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co., 707 F. Supp. 762 (E.D. Pa. 1989). an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured, ( policies) For the purpose of determining the limit of the company s liability (1) all personal injury and property damage arising out of continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions... shall be considered as arising out of one occurrence. Claimants alleged injuries resulting from exposure to a number of asbestos and welding products. Claimants suffered multiple injuries of different magnitudes extending over a period of time. Court was asked to determine number of occurrences for purposes of applying retrospective premiums. The policies contained large per-occurrence ratable incurred loss limits. Court applied a cause test. Ruled that the claimants alleged injuries resulted from a single proximate cause the continuing sale of the plaintiff s asbestos-containing products and welding products. outcome supported by policy language and large per-occurrence ratable insured loss limit. Appalachian Ins. Co. v. General Elec. Co., No. 1-11, 2007 WL , 836 N.Y.S.2d 533, 868 N.E.2d 213 (N.Y. Feb. 15, 2007). accident, event, happening or continuous or repeated exposure to conditions which unintentionally results in injury or damage. Multiple occurrence Claimants who were exposed to asbestos-containing insulation used in steam turbines manufactured by the insured and installed at more than 22,000 sites throughout the United States alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries. Although the insured did not produce the asbestos-related products, for decades it designed, manufactured and, in some cases, installed custom turbines that were insulated with asbestos-containing products manufactured by others. The New York high court ruled: 3
5 (1) the unfortunate event standard governed question of whether multiple asbestosrelated claims could be aggregated, and (2) multiple claims could not be aggregated, given lack of relationship among incidents, i.e. each claimant's repeated or continuous exposure. In so doing, it affirmed underlying court rulings in which the trial court noted: the turbines were custom-designed based on the specific needs of GE customers, with little or no uniformity in the amounts or types of asbestos insulation incorporated in the design. Moreover, the exposure of the individual plaintiffs varied in duration and intensity and occurred over decades at more than 22,000 work sites throughout the nation. In sum, there was insufficient temporal and spatial proximity among the claims to unify them as one occurrence. The court concluded that the exposure of each plaintiff to asbestos-containing insulation was the unfortunate event for which GE was being held liable. Cole v. Celotex Corp., 588 So. 2d 376 (La. Ct. App. 1991). all bodily injury and property damage arising out of continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions shall be considered as arising out of one occurrence. Multiple occurrence Former employees of refinery sued manufacturers alleging injury resulting from occupational exposure to asbestos. Trial court had concluded that the claims of three plaintiffs constituted separate occurrences because the plaintiffs were exposed to different levels of asbestos at different times, under a variety of conditions and at diverse job sites. Court of Appeals affirmed. The court also noted that plaintiffs belonged to different crafts and worked in different crews and their exposures were scattered and varied throughout the refinery. Colt Industries Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., No. CIV.A , 1989 WL (E.D. Pa. Dec. 6, 1989). an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured. Thousands of claimants sued for bodily injuries allegedly suffered as a result of exposure to asbestos contained in gaskets. Court found that all underlying asbestos-related actions arise from a single occurrence for the purpose of meeting the insured s deductible obligations. 4
6 all bodily injury and property damage arising out of continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions shall be considered as arising out of one occurrence. According to the court, interpreting the manufacture of a product containing asbestos as a single occurrence is in accord with other decisions whichdecisions that have interpreted the same language under Pennsylvania law. Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Porter Hayden Co., 698 A.2d 1167 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997). an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury... neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured. Multiple occurrence Claimants sued installer of insulation containing asbestos. Alleged injury to each claimant was occurrence or accident to which limits of liability applied. Insured s decision to install asbestos-containing insulation during policy period was not the occurrence or accident. Occurrence is the claimant s unique asbestos exposure, and thus each exposure is a separate occurrence. Fina, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 184 F. Supp. 2d 547 (N.D. Tex. 2002). an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured. [f]or the purpose of determining the limit of the [insurer's] liability, all bodily injury and property damage arising out of continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions shall be considered as arising out of one occurrence. Three single occurrences Workers sued employer for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of asbestos exposure while working at the insured s facilities. Texas applies a cause analysis. Cause of claimants injuries was exposure to asbestos. Court found that claimants who were exposed to asbestos at the same location, at roughly the same time, were exposed to substantially the same general condition. Court found at least three occurrences, one at each of insured s facilities. Flintkote Co. v. No definition of occurrence. Multiple Company that had mined and sold asbestos sued insurers for coverage under policies 5
7 occurrences issued to subsidiaries. General Acc. Assur. Co., 410 F. Supp. 2d 875 (N.D. Cal. 2006). Formatted The court found based on consistent usage within the policy, that occurrence means an event that causes and immediately precedes an injury giving rise to liability under the policy. Holdings interpreting occurrence : Court looks primarily to language of policy to determine meaning of terms. Controlling test is reasonable expectation of insurer and insured at time of formation. Formatted Usage of occurrence in the instant policy was an event that causes and immediately precedes an injury giving rise to liability under Formatted the policy. Id at 892. Also noted: It would be foolish, however, to state as a matter of law that the word occurrence... has the same meaning in all insurance contracts, or even all asbestos-related insurance contracts. Id. at 887. Occurrence used in this policy as meaning accident, rather than indication the occurrence of an operational fact. Also noted equity of outcome is not determinative in interpreting policy contracts. Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Holdings qualifying/disqualifying events as occurrences : Court will look to case law to determine which events qualify as an occurrence. In California, occurrence / accident associated with time of injury, refers to immediate rather than remote causes. Greene, Tweed & Co. Inc. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., No. CIV. A , 2006 WL (E.D. Pa. April 21, 2006). an event, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which result [sic] in Personal Injury or Property Damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured. All such exposure to substantially the same general Thousands of claimants alleged injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by insured.. Court found that claims have a common source or cause, that is, insured s manufacture and sale of asbestos products. All persons who filed claims were exposed to substantially 6
8 conditions shall be deemed one the same general conditions. occurrence... The terms accident and Multiple occurrence are not defined in the occurrences policies. In re Prudential Lines, Inc., 158 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 1998) (applying New York law). Thousands of claimants alleged exposure to asbestos while working aboard insured s ships. Each claim arising under marine protection and indemnity policies arose from separate occurrence. Occurrence is the claimant s unique asbestos exposure, and thus that each exposure is a separate occurrence. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Treesdale, Inc. 418 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2005) (applying Pennsylvania law). injurious exposure to conditions, which results in personal injury, property damage or advertising injury or damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured. all personal injury and property damage arising out of continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions... shall be considered as the result of one and the same occurrence. Thousands of claimants, primarily steel workers, sued insured manufacturer of asbestoscontaining product, alleging bodily injuries resulting from asbestos exposure while they worked in the open hearthopen-hearth part of steel mills and who also have had contact with the open hearth. Court affirmed district court ruling that applied a cause of loss test and found that the cause of the injury was the manufacture and sale of the asbestos-containing products. District court had also found that the injuries arising from a common source, e.g. manufacture and sale, must be treated as a single occurrence. London Market Insurers v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County; Truck Ins. Exchange, et al. 146 Cal. App. 4th 648 an event or series of events or continuous or repeated exposure to conditions which results in legal liability, regardless of the number of persons, vehicles or objects affected by such act or acts or omission. As Remanded; number of occurrences not determined Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corp. manufactured products containing asbestos at ten different facilities at various times for more than thirty years. Over 24,000 claimants had filed suits against Kaiser by 2004, alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos in Kaiser s products. Court of Appeal concluded that occurrence means injurious exposure to asbestos. Court 7
9 (2007). Petitions for Review to California Supreme Court filed February 2007 respects the Products Hazard, an occurrence shall be deemed to have taken place at the time of the injury or damage to the claimant and not at the time of the act of the Insured giving rise to liability. (1964 policy) an event or series of events or continuous or repeated exposure to conditions which results in personal injury or property damage during the policy period. (1974 policy) all... damages arising out of one lot of goods or products prepared or acquired by the Named Insured... shall be considered as arising out of one occurrence. (1964 policy) all such exposure to substantially the same general conditions existing at or emanating from each premises location shall be deemed one occurrence. (1974 policy) did not conclude that each claimant s injurious exposure to asbestos necessarily is a separate occurrence. Rather, it remanded the case to the trial court so that the facts of each claim could be developed for purposes of applying the one lot or same general conditions clauses. The California court declined to apply case holdings of other states, noting: Notwithstanding their profusion, none of the preceding opinions engages in the thorough examination of the policy language California law requires. Id. at 657. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 255 Conn. 295 (2001). The defendants' policies do not define the term occurrence. all bodily injury and property damage arising out of continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the Blocks of single occurrences Health insurer brought action against excess insurers for declaration that its alleged failure to warn of asbestos was a single occurrence. Occurrence is each claimant s initial exposure to asbestos, rather than the alleged failure to warn, resulting in multiple occurrences. Court also stated that the continuous exposure clause in the policies serves to combine claims arising from exposure to 8
10 same general conditions shall be considered as arising out of one occurrence. asbestos at the same place at roughly the same time into one occurrence, but does not combine hundreds of thousands of exposures at different times and locations into one occurrence. Missouri Pacific R.R. v. International Ins. Co., 288 Ill. App. 3d 69 (1997). (a) an accident, or (b) a continuous or repeated exposure to conditions which result in personal injury or property damage which is neither expected nor intended from the stand point of [Missouri Pacific], if such accident or such personal injury or property damage occurs while this policy is in force. Railroad employees sued railroad, alleging asbestos-related injuries allegedly caused by continuous and repeated exposure to unsafe levels of asbestos over the course of their employment. Trial court granted railroad s summary judgment motion, finding as a matter of law that all asbestos-exposure claims arose from a single occurrence, and that insured, who had maintained SIRs for over 50 years, had only therefore to exhaust one SIR per occurrence. Number of occurrences was not an issue before the Court of Appeal; it accepted, without questioning, the trial court s one-occurrence ruling. Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 597 F. Supp (D.D.C. 1984). an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in personal injury... which is neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured. all personal injury... arising out of continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions shall be considered as arising out of one occurrence. Thousands of claimants sued company that manufactured and sold a diversified line of asbestos-containing products. Court noted that if each claimant s exposure to the product must be regarded as a separate occurrence, insured would have to absorb a deductible on each claim before insurer would be obligated to respond. Court also noted that the deductibles were larger than the amount of any single claim successfully brought against insured to date. Such an interpretation would emasculate coverage purchased by the insured. Court looked to reasonable expectations of insured and found that the manufacture and sale of the insured s product must be regarded as a single occurrence. 9
11 Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. United Ins., 264 N.J. Super. 460 (1993). an accident, including injurious exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury or property damage. In order to preserve insured s reasonable expectations, manufacture and sale of thermal insulation product containing asbestos had to be regarded as a single occurrence triggering liability for asbestos-related injuries, and coverage was thus subject to a single deductible. Plastics Engineering Co. v. Liberty Mut l Ins. Co., No , 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (E.D. Wis. Oct. 27, 2006). an accident, including injurious exposure to conditions, which results, during the policy period, in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured. ( policies) Multiple occurrences Company was sued by thousands of claimants alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to the company s asbestos-containing products. Court predicted that the Wisconsin Supreme Court would conclude that each individual injury constitutes a separate occurrence based on the language of the policies. Occurrence for coverage purposes is defined from the perspective of the injured, not the insured. an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured. ( policies) all bodily injury and property damage arising out of continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions shall be considered as arising out of one occurrence. 10
12 Stonewall Ins. Co. v. Asbestos Claims Management Corp., 73 F.3d 1178 (2d Cir. 1995) (applying New York law). an accident, or continuous or repeated exposure to conditions which results, during the policy period, in personal injury... neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured. Multiple occurrences In determining number of occurrences for deductible purposes, New York inquires whether multiple claims result from an event of an unfortunate character that takes place without one s foresight or expectation. Under New York or Texas law, each installation of insured s asbestos-containing products into building was separate occurrence for purposes of per occurrence deductible. The policy language and case law provide no basis for aggregating events widely separated in time and space into one occurrence. United States Gypsum Co. v. Admiral Ins. Co. 268 Ill. App. 3d 598 (1995). There was no uniform definition of occurrence throughout the policies. Property owners alleged that asbestos-containing building materials manufactured by insured caused property damage to their buildings. Court stated that the occurrence for purpose of calculating deductibles should coincide with the cause of the damage and that the cause should be characterized as the continuing process of the manufacture and sale of asbestos-containing products. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co., No. A T5, A T5, 2004 WL (N.J. Super. Ct. July 8, 2004). an accident or a happening or event or a continuous or repeated exposure to conditions during the policy period which unintentionally results in personal injury, property damage, advertising liability or broadcasting liability... All such exposure to substantially the same general conditions existing at or emanating from one premises location shall be deemed one occurrence. Insured sought coverage for underlying asbestos bodily injury claims arising from three causes: exposure to asbestos products manufactured or distributed by the insured, exposure to PCBs in products manufactured or sold by the insured, and exposure to hazardous materials in fumes from welding rods manufactured or sold by the insured. The court affirmed a trial court ruling in favor of a single occurrence. It stated that the hazard plaintiff insured against was liability arising from the use of its products. Here, the cause of injury was the manufacture and sale of a particular injury-causing product. That was a single event. 11
13 Continental Casualty Co.; American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau, et al., No /03, 16 Misc.3d 223 (2007), 2007 NY Slip Op , 839 N.Y.S.2d 403 (Sup. Ct. of N.Y., County of N.Y. May 8, 2007) [Keasbey] an accident including injurious exposure to conditions, which results during the policy period, in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured. Multiple occurrences Underlying class action injury matter against defendant Keasbey Company. Keasbey defaulted in that action, and plaintiffs, Keasbey s primary general liability insurers, requested declaratory judgment that the underlying claims fell under the policies completed operations coverage, which had an aggregate limit, and not under premises/operations coverage. Only policy limit on premises/operations coverage was per occurrence provision. The Court held defendants (the class action plaintiffs) entitled to declaratory judgment that each individual s exposure constitutes a separate occurrence. Comparing to Appalachian Ins., the Continental Court noted that court interpreted a similar definition of occurrence, to require a case-by-case analysis of the time and space relationships between the various incidents that caused injuries to establish whether the incidents form a continuum, or are separate, unconnected occurrences. Id., at 242. Court recognized that there could be circumstances that would support a continuum of occurrence, and a resulting single occurrence holding. However, in this instance, the Court determined that the incidents in question, which all took place at various work sites over the course of many years supported a finding of multiple occurrences. Id. #
14 Offices 233 S. Wacker Drive 22nd Floor Chicago, IL T: F: W. Briarcliff Road Suite 201 Bolingbrook, IL T: F: One Penn Plaza Suite 4701 New York, NY T: F: Von Karman Ave Suite 800 Irvine, CA T: F: Broad Street Suite 1510 Newark, NJ T: F: Avenue of the Stars Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA T: F:
Henkel 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 informationThe Effect of Asbestosis Exclusions October 20, 2014
The Effect of Asbestosis Exclusions October 20, 2014 Andrew S. Lewner Does this exclusion bar all bodily injury claims resulting from exposure to asbestos? In consideration of the premium charged it is
More informationRecent Developments and Issues in Insurance Coverage for Asbestos Claims
Recent Developments and Issues in Insurance Coverage for Asbestos Claims Presented by: Lawrence A. Hobel Linda Bondi Morrison Cutting-Edge Issues in Asbestos Litigation Conference March 17, 2014 Topics»
More informationAllocating Defense Costs Among Multiple Insurers and Between Covered and Uncovered Claims
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Allocating Defense Costs Among Multiple Insurers and Between Covered and Uncovered Claims Methods of Allocation Among Insurers and Allocation to
More informationJUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Division II Opinion by JUDGE TERRY Casebolt and Furman, JJ., concur. Announced June 10, 2010
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 09CA0830 Arapahoe County District Court No. 08CV1981 Honorable Michael Spear, Judge Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
More informationChapter XI INSURANCE. While many insurance policies do not cover environmental remediation and damages, insurance. A. General Liability Insurance
Chapter XI INSURANCE There are several different types of insurance that may apply to environmental problems. While many insurance policies do not cover environmental remediation and damages, insurance
More informationPersistence Of Trigger, Allocation Disputes
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 Persistence Of Trigger, Allocation Disputes
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 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 informationCasualty Insurance. Long-Term Professional Liability Cases: Who Is Responsible For Nursing Home Claims? By Walter J. Andrews and Syed S.
March, 2005 No. 5 Casualty Insurance In This Issue Walter Andrews is a partner in the McLean, VA office of Hunton & Williams. His practice focuses on complex insurance coverage litigation and counseling.
More informationCase 2:06-cv-10929-LMA-DEK Document 23 Filed 01/29/07 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. versus No.
Case 2:06-cv-10929-LMA-DEK Document 23 Filed 01/29/07 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JOYCE HAMPTON, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION versus No. 06-10929 OWENS-ILLINOIS, ET AL.
More informationCase 1:11-cv-00912-TJM-DJS Document 196 Filed 06/20/14 Page 1 of 13. Plaintiff, v. 1:11-CV-912. Defendants. DECISION and ORDER
Case 1:11-cv-00912-TJM-DJS Document 196 Filed 06/20/14 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PACIFIC EMPLOYERS
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HOME-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 10, 2013 v No. 310157 Genesee Circuit Court ELIAS CHAMMAS and CHAMMAS, INC., d/b/a LC No. 09-092739-CK
More information2016 IL App (1st) 133918-U. No. 1-13-3918 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT
2016 IL App (1st) 133918-U No. 1-13-3918 SIXTH DIVISION May 6, 2016 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
More information2015 IL App (1st) 140790-U. No. 1-14-0790 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2015 IL App (1st 140790-U THIRD DIVISION March 25, 2015 No. 1-14-0790 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
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 informationCase4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document1074-1 Filed06/08/11 Page1 of 6 EXHIBIT A
Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document1074-1 Filed06/08/11 Page1 of 6 EXHIBIT A Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document1074-1 Filed06/08/11 Page2 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Northern District of California,
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 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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-20512 Document: 00512673150 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/23/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED June 23, 2014 Lyle W.
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 BETTER LATE THAN NEVER:
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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar. Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD.
Case: 14-11987 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 1 of 11 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD PIEDMONT OFFICE
More informationVertical Exhaustion & Occurrences
Vertical Exhaustion & Occurrences R. Brent Cooper Cooper & Scully, P.C. 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: 214-712-9501 Email: brent.cooper@cooperscully.com 2016 This paper and/or
More informationINSURANCE LAW UPDATE. Revisiting the "Number of Occurrences" Issue
INSURANCE LAW UPDATE Revisiting the "Number of Occurrences" Issue An Examination of Case Law on "Number of Occurrences" in Light of the New York Federal Court's Recent Ruling that the Terrorist Attack
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 07-3147 NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona corporation, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, 1452-4 N. MILWAUKEE AVENUE, LLC, GREAT CENTRAL INSURANCE
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 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 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 PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY : MAY TERM, 2004 & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, : No. 0621
More informationThe question whether a jurisdiction should adopt an all sums or pro rata allocation
All Sums In Action Mary F. Licari Bates & Carey LLP 191 North Wacker Drive Suite 2400 Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 762-3100 (312) 762-3200 (Fax) mlicari@batescarey.com This paper presents an overview
More informationA summary and analysis of Borg-Warner is attached.
According to Andrew Schirrmeister, plaintiffs lawyers specializing in toxic tort litigation are scrambling. On June 8, 2007, in Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores, 1 the Texas Supreme Court issued a significant
More informationDefending Take-Home Exposure Cases Duty in the Context of Premises and Employer Liability
Defending Take-Home Exposure Cases Duty in the Context of Premises and Employer Liability Presented by Deborah K. St. Lawrence Thompson, Counsel Miles & Stockbridge, P.C. Baltimore, Maryland September
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY WESTFIELD INSURANCE ) COMPANY, INC., ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) C.A. No. N14C-06-214 ALR ) MIRANDA & HARDT ) CONTRACTING AND BUILDING
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 informationEmerging Liability Risks A Practical Accumulation Example
Emerging Liability Risks A Practical Accumulation Example Emerging Liability Risks A Practical Accumulation Example Wilhelm Zeller, Rüschlikon, 4 November 2015 Sources incl.: Wikipedia, RAND, NERA. Emerging
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 informationMARY KAY VYSKOCIL. The Ritz Carlton Hotel, Pentagon City, Virginia, (Washington, D.C.), ALLOCATION, Copyright 2000
MEALEY'S INSURANCE 101 CONFERENCE: A PRACTICAL INTRODUCTION MARY KAY VYSKOCIL SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP SEPTEMBER 15, 2000 The Ritz Carlton Hotel, Pentagon City, Virginia, (Washington, D.C.), ALLOCATION,
More informationCase 2:14-cv-00170-TS Document 45 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
Case 2:14-cv-00170-TS Document 45 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut corporation, and
More informationThat s A Wrap What Every Claims And Construction Professional Needs To Know About Wrap-up Insurance Programs
2015 CLM Atlanta Conference November 5-6, 2015 in Atlanta, GA That s A Wrap What Every Claims And Construction Professional Needs To Know About Wrap-up Insurance Programs In the construction industry,
More informationASBESTOS CLAIMS AND LITIGATION
ASBESTOS CLAIMS AND LITIGATION PFIZER, INC. V. LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS CASE ANALYSIS: PARENT COMPANYASBESTOS LIABILITY July, 2013 ALRA Group Members http://alragroup.com / I. Introduction (F. Grey
More informationNO. 5-07-0468 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT
NOTICE Decision filed 07/13/10. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the NO. 5-07-0468 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS disposition
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION : : Limited to: : Olson, Arland : C.A. No. 09C-12-287 ASB UPON DEFENDANT CBS CORPORATION S MOTION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-60770 Document: 00513129690 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT KINSALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee United States Court of Appeals
More informationIntroduction to Insurance Policies
Chapter 1 Introduction to Insurance Policies 1-1 TYPES OF POLICIES 1-1:1 Personal Lines Versus Commercial Lines Policies Personal lines policies are purchased by an individual, rather than an organization,
More informationIn the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO FRANCIS GRAHAM, ) No. ED97421 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Louis County vs. ) ) Honorable Steven H. Goldman STATE
More informationCan You Trust A Certificate Of Insurance?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Can You Trust A Certificate Of Insurance? Law360,
More information2014 IL App (5th) 120588-U NO. 5-12-0588 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT
NOTICE Decision filed 01/23/14. 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. 2014 IL App (5th) 120588-U NO. 5-12-0588
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. MARC BROWN & a. CONCORD GROUP INSURANCE COMPANY
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
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 information2:08-cv-12533-DPH-PJK Doc # 67 Filed 03/26/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 2147 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:08-cv-12533-DPH-PJK Doc # 67 Filed 03/26/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 2147 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff, MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC
More informationIs Fair Fair?: All Sums and the Allocation of Deductibles
Is Fair Fair?: All Sums and the Allocation of Deductibles by Lorelie S. Masters and Jerold Oshinsky Mr. Oshinsky is a partner at Jenner & Block LLP in Los Angeles. He is co-author of Practitioner s Guide
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 informationFOLLOW THE SETTLEMENTS: BAD CLAIMS HANDLING EXCEPTION. Robert M. Hall
FOLLOW THE SETTLEMENTS: BAD CLAIMS HANDLING EXCEPTION By Robert M. Hall [Mr. Hall is a former law firm partner, a former insurance and reinsurance company executive and acts as an insurance consultant
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 informationIMO Industries Tackles New Jersey Law on Host of Insurance Coverage Issues
13 October 2014 Practice Groups: Insurance Coverage Toxic Tort IMO Industries Tackles New Jersey Law on Host of Insurance Coverage Issues New Jersey Insurance Coverage and Toxic Tort Alert By Donald W.
More informationMEMORANDUM. Preface. Brief Answer
MEMORANDUM From: Mitchell S. Cohen, Esquire Re: Decisions Governing the Issue of Secondary Exposure Asbestos Cases in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and States of New Jersey and New York Date: 11 November
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MARYLAND ACCOUNTING SERVICES, INC., et al. Plaintiffs, v. Case No. CCB-11-CV-00145 CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs
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 informationSecond Annual Conference September 16, 2015 to September 18, 2015 Chicago, IL
Second Annual Conference September 16, 2015 to September 18, 2015 Chicago, IL Using Insurance Coverage to Mitigate Cybersecurity Risks To Warranty and Service Contract Businesses Barry Buchman, Partner
More informationCase 3:06-cv-00073-D Document 32 Filed 03/21/07 Page 1 of 22 PageID 1383
Case 3:06-cv-00073-D Document 32 Filed 03/21/07 Page 1 of 22 PageID 1383 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Plaintiff, VS. NATIONAL
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION * * * * * * *
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION JANE M. LEWIS VERSUS PRESTIGE TITLE INCORPORATED, SOUTHERN MORTGAGE FINANCIAL GROUP, L.L.C. D/B/A FIDELITY LENDING (SOUTHERN), FIRST NATIONAL SECURITY CORPORATION N/K/A LITTON
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 informationIN COURT OF APPEALS. DECISION DATED AND FILED December 9, 2004. Appeal No. 04-2182-FT DISTRICT IV ATLANTA CASUALTY COMPANIES, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED December 9, 2004 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear
More informationRecent Case Update. Insurance Stacking UIM Westra v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Court of Appeals, 13 AP 48, June 18, 2013)
Recent Case Update VOL. XXII, NO. 2 Summer 2013 Insurance Summary Judgment Stacking UIM Saladin v. Progressive Northern Insurance Company (Court of Appeals, 12 AP 1649, June 4, 2013) On August 26, 2010,
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 informationAPPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Waukesha County: J. MAC DAVIS, Judge. Reversed and cause remanded with directions.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 12, 2014 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROL DEMIZIO AND ANTHONY : CIVIL ACTION DEMIZIO in their own right and as : ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE : NO. 05-409 OF MATTHEW
More informationHow To Prove That A Person Is Not Responsible For A Cancer
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Alternative Burdens May Come With Alternative Causes
More informationDissecting the Professional Services Exclusion in a Commercial General Liability Policy
Dissecting the Professional Services Exclusion in a Commercial General Liability Policy Lewis S. Wooton December 15, 2010 Most commercial general liability policies contain a professional services exclusion
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 PROGRESSIVE CLASSIC INSURANCE February Term 2005 COMPANY Plaintiff, No. 0507 v. Commerce
More informationCyber Insurance and Your Data Ted Claypoole, Partner, Womble Carlyle and Jack Freund, PhD, InfoSec Mgr, TIAA-CREF
Cyber Insurance and Your Data Ted Claypoole, Partner, Womble Carlyle and Jack Freund, PhD, InfoSec Mgr, TIAA-CREF October 9, 2013 1 Cyber Insurance Why? United States Department of Commerce: Cyber Insurance
More informationNOTICE IN COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED. March 5, 1997. No. 95-3411. RYAN TENNESSEN, DANIEL TENNESSEN and DARLENE TENNESSEN,
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED March 5, 1997 A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals pursuant to 808.10, STATS., within 30
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 COPLEY ASSOCIATES, LTD., DECEMBER TERM, 2005 Plaintiff, NO. 01332 v. COMMERCE PROGRAM ERIE
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS )SS:
STATE OF OHIO IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS SS: CUYAHOGA COUNTY CASE NO. CV-484139 THE OAKWOOD CLUB Plaintiff vs. OPINION AND ORDER KINNEY GOLF COURSE DESIGN, ET AL Defendants MICHAEL J. RUSSO, JUDGE: This
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA. v. MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY et al Doc. 324 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
More information2013 IL App (1st) 122479 - U SECOND DIVISION May 14, 2013. No. 1-12-2479
2013 IL App (1st) 122479 - U SECOND DIVISION May 14, 2013 No. 1-12-2479 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
More informationNo. 2--07--1205 Filed: 12-19-08 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT
Filed: 12-19-08 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT WESTPORT INSURANCE Appeal from the Circuit Court CORPORATION, of McHenry County. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-Appellee, v. No. 04--MR--53
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. The memorandum disposition filed on May 19, 2016, is hereby amended.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED JUN 30 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation, v. Plaintiff - Appellant,
More informationUPDATE. Insurance Coverage
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
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 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 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 APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Filed 10/11/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT ED AGUILAR, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B238853 (Los Angeles County
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 informationEXPLORING THE SELF-INSURED - INSURER RELATIONSHIP
EXPLORING THE SELF-INSURED - INSURER RELATIONSHIP I. INTRODUCTION By: Jay Barry Harris and Hema Patel Mehta Fineman Krekstein & Harris, P.C. 30 S. 17 th Street, Suite 1800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 215-893-9300
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Memorandum and Order
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C., Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2344 Memorandum and Order YOHN,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION CANDY TUCKER, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 1:06-CV-19 CAS ) WAL-MART STORES, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE FARM MUTUAL, ) AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE ) COMPANY (as subrogee of Tera ) & Nanette Robinson), ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A.
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 19 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation, v. Plaintiff
More informationCase 3:10-cv-01946-SRU Document 1 Filed 12/10/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Case 310-cv-01946-SRU Document 1 Filed 12/10/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY as successor to THE AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY CO.,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. Nos. 01-3935; 02-3663; 02-3902
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Nos. 01-3935; 02-3663; 02-3902 1 NOT PRECEDENTIAL BINTOU K. DIENG, as the Intended Third Party Beneficiary of the Policy of Insurance/Self-Insurance
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 informationHow To Defend Yourself In A Lawsuit Against A Car Insurance Policy In Illinois
Case: 1:10-cv-08146 Document #: 27 Filed: 06/29/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:342 TKK USA INC., f/k/a The Thermos Company, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff,
More informationAutomobile Liability Policy Held to Cover Stolen Car
The Ohio State University Knowledge Bank kb.osu.edu Ohio State Law Journal (Moritz College of Law) Ohio State Law Journal: Volume 22, Issue 3 (1961) 1961 Automobile Liability Policy Held to Cover Stolen
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 UNIVERSITY HEALTH SERVICES, INC., : JANUARY TERM, 2003 Plaintiff : : No. 3572 v. : : Commerce
More informationRolling the Dice: Insurer s Bad Faith Failure to Settle within Limits
Rolling the Dice: Insurer s Bad Faith Failure to Settle within Limits By: Attorney Jeffrey J Vita and Attorney Bethany DiMarzio Clearly the obligation to accept a good-faith settlement within the policy
More informationCase 3:08-cv-00685-B Document 235 Filed 10/16/09 Page 1 of 9 PageID 12363 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:08-cv-00685-B Document 235 Filed 10/16/09 Page 1 of 9 PageID 12363 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION TRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIAL COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL
More informationHow To Get A Summary Judgment In A Well Service Case In Texas
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION JASON LONG, Plaintiff, v. NO. 0:00-CV-000 ABC THE CHABON GROUP, INC., Defendant. DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ROBERT M. EDWARDS, JR. Jones Obenchain, LLP South Bend, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: KATHRYN A. MOLL Nation Schoening Moll Fortville, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
More information