ADDRESSING MULTIPLE CLAIMS.
|
|
- Jane Floyd
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 0022 [ST: 1] [ED: 10000] [REL: 2] Composed: Wed Oct 15 14:15:43 EDT 2008 IV. ADDRESSING MULTIPLE CLAIMS Consider Insurance Provisions as to Multiple Claims and Interrelated Wrongful Acts [1] Consider the Related Acts Clause. Frequently, an employer s decision may result in multiple claims filed by several employees. Alternatively, a single employee may assert more than one claim (e.g., an EEOC charge followed by a retaliation claim). Insurers offer claims-made coverage with a per-claim limit of liability. Because employment acts frequently result in more than one claim, EPL underwriters add language that specifies how the parties should treat multiple claims. This provision is sometimes referred to as a related acts clause. One typical related acts clause stated, [A]ll Related Claims will be treated as a single Claim made at the time the first of such Related Claims was made. [Janjer Enterprises., Inc. v. Executive Risk Indem., Inc., 97 Fed. Appx. 410, 412 (4th Cir. 2004)]. The same policy defined Related Claims as: [A]ll Claims based on, arising out of, directly or indirectly resulting from, in consequence of, or in any way involving the same or related facts, circumstances, situations, transactions, events or Employment Practices Wrongful Acts or the same or related series of facts, circumstances, situations, transactions, events or Employment Practice Wrongful Acts [id.]. The related acts clause serves to limit an insurer s liability in generally two scenarios: (1) when multiple claimants bring separate claims due to a single employment decision; and (2) when a claimant makes multiple claims based on the same employment decision [2] Applying the Related Acts Clause to Claims Involving Multiple Claimants. When an employment claim involves more than one claimant, often a dispute arises over available limits of liability. [This assumes, of course, that the aggregate limit is more than the per claim limit; frequently the aggregate is equal to the per claim limit]. As long as each claimant s allegations arise from a similar or related wrongful act, the related acts clause should aggregate these separate claims into a single claim for purposes of determining the limits available under the policy. Under these circumstances, multiple claims asserted against an insured should not increase the limits of coverage available to the policyholder. Although not an EPL case, the decision in Gregory v. Home Ins. Co. [876 F.2d 602 (7th Cir. 1989)] is instructive with respect to the application of the related acts clause. In Gregory, an attorney represented a company attempting to obtain investors for a video production. The attorney wrote an opinion letter that the production was not a security for tax purposes. The investors took income tax deductions based on the attorney s opinion. The Internal Revenue Service, however, later ruled that the investment scheme constituted a security. As a result of this ruling, the IRS charged the investors with interest and penalties. In turn, the 41-22
2 0023 [ST: 1] [ED: 10000] [REL: 2] Composed: Wed Oct 15 14:15:43 EDT 2008 Understanding Employment Liability Insurance 41.11[3] investors filed a class-action lawsuit against the production company and the attorney, and the production company filed a cross-claim against its attorney [id. at 603]. The insured attorney had a malpractice policy that provided a $500,000 per claim limit of liability and a $1 million aggregate limit. The attorney and his malpractice carrier disputed whether the multiple claimants resulted in two or more claims. The attorney sought a declaratory judgment that the class action constituted multiple claims or that the class action and the cross-claim constituted multiple claims. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Seventh Circuit observed that the malpractice policy provided that, Two or more claims arising out of a single act, error, omission or personal injury or a series of related acts, errors or omissions or personal injuries shall be treated as a single claim [id. at 604]. The court decided without analysis that the class action claims were a single claim. With respect to the cross-claim by the client, the court ruled that this claim was related. The court reasoned that the term related encompassed either a causal or logical connection, and that the advice given to the client was related to the advice given to the investors [id. at 605, 606] [3] Applying the Related Acts Clause When Multiple Claims Arise from a Single Wrongful Act. The second circumstance implicating the related acts clause arises when the same employment decision generates more than one claim. For example, a claimant might file an EEOC charge, followed by a lawsuit. Both are claims. If the claimant files an EEOC charge in one policy period, and then files a lawsuit in a subsequent policy period, the issue of the number of claims also will overlap with notice issues. z Strategic Point Insured: If the insured failed to provide notice of the administrative claim during the first policy period, it will likely argue that the subsequent lawsuit is a new claim in order to avoid the effect of the notice clause. z Strategic Point Insurer: Where the policy contains a related acts clause that is pertinent, the insurer should consider arguing that the late notice bars coverage of both the administrative action and the lawsuit. Example: In Pantropic Power Prods. v. Fireman s Fund Ins. Co. [141 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1368 (S.D. Fla. 2001), aff d, 34 Fed. Appx. 968 (11th Cir. 2002)], the court had found the insured failed to timely report an administrative charge during one policy period. The insured therefore argued that a lawsuit in the subsequent policy period constituted a new claim, for which it provided timely notice. The insured contended that the lawsuit included new claims for relief not raised in the 41-23
3 0024 [ST: 1] [ED: 10000] [REL: 2] Composed: Wed Oct 15 14:15:44 EDT 2008 VER: [FM Master:23 Aug 08 10:45][MX-SECNDARY: 23 Sep 08 17:20][TT-: 23 Aug 08 10:46 loc=usa unit=60099-ch0041] [3] New Appleman Insurance Practice Guide administrative action. In particular, the insured argued that the claimant included a retaliation claim in the lawsuit, which could not have arisen until after the claimant filed the administrative charge. The policy, however, included a related acts provision stating that claims arising from the same wrongful employment practice or series of similar or related wrongful employment practices are deemed to be a single claim for the purposes of the notice provision [id.]. Accordingly, the insurer argued that the administrative action and the lawsuit arose from the same wrongful practice or series of related wrongful employment practices. Therefore, the two matters constituted a single claim. The court agreed with the insurer, reasoning that claims that are causally connected or that arise from similar factual circumstances are related for purposes of the notice provision. The court found that the sexual harassment and retaliation claims shared a temporal proximity and involved the same individuals. Because the two claims were causally connected, they constituted a single claim, which was first made against the insured in the first policy period [see also Am. Center for Int l Labor Solidarity v. Fed. Ins. Co., 518 F. Supp. 2d 163, 174 (D.D.C. 2007) (ruling that a second claim filed against a supervisor was related to the employee s original suit against the employer); Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr P.C. v. Exec. Risk Specialty Ins. Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (N.D. Tex. 2007) (ruling that an administrative action and a later lawsuit were related claims, and as a result, the insured s failure to timely report an EEOC charge violated the policy s notice provision)]. Where the policy is ambiguous with respect to whether multiple claims could arise from one set of facts, however, the court may find that an administrative action and a subsequent lawsuit are distinct claims. Example: In Lodgenet Entertainment Corp. v. American Int l Specialty Lines Ins. Co. [299 F. Supp. 2d 987 (D.S.D. 2003)], the policyholder purchased consecutive EPL policies from his insurer. The policies afforded claims-made and reported coverage, and required the insured to report claims within 30 days after the end of the policy period [id. at 990]. A former employee of the insured filed an administrative charge with the EEOC alleging sexual harassment. The claimant made the charge, and the insured received the charge shortly before the end of the first policy period. The insured, however, did not inform the insurer of the administrative charge. The claimant filed suit in the subsequent policy period, and the insured gave the insurer prompt notice of the lawsuit
4 0025 [ST: 1] [ED: 10000] [REL: 2] Composed: Wed Oct 15 14:15:44 EDT 2008 Understanding Employment Liability Insurance 41.12[1] The insurer denied coverage and litigation ensued. On summary judgment, the parties appear to have agreed that the notice of the administrative action was untimely. The insured argued, however, that it was entitled to summary judgment because the lawsuit constituted a separate claim. The insurer cross-moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the administrative action and lawsuit arose from the same facts, and therefore, constituted a single claim [id. at 991]. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the insured, observing that the definition of claim in the policy did not provide that all suits or proceedings arising from the same set of facts would be deemed a single claim. The Notice/Claim Reporting provision stated: If written notice of a Claim has been given to the Insurer pursuant to Clause 7(a) above, then any Claim which is subsequently made against the Insureds and reported to the Insurer alleging, arising out of, based upon or attributable to the facts alleged in the Claim for which such notice has been given, or alleging any Employment Practices Violation which is the same as or related to any Employment Practices Violation alleged in the Claim of which such notice has been given, shall be considered made at the time such notice was given [id. at 992]. The court found that the language a Claim and any Claim which is subsequently made supported the insured s position that more than one claim could arise from the same set of facts [id.] Consider the Time Restrictions on Coverage of a Wrongful Act [1] Understand the Significance of the Retroactive Date and the Extended Reporting Period. Although the most important timing issues regarding EPL policies are the date of the claim against the insured and the date of notice to the insurer, EPL policies also typically place limitations on when the wrongful acts giving rise to coverage may take place in order for coverage to exist. The earliest date on which a covered wrongful act may take place is usually known as the retroactive date. Most EPL policies provide that coverage exists only for claims arising from wrongful acts that take place after the retroactive date. An insurer typically sets the retroactive date to the initial date the insured purchases insurance with the carrier. If the insured has had claims-made coverage in place with another carrier, sometimes the subsequent insurer will set the retroactive date based on the date the insured first purchased claims-made coverage for a risk. The latest date on which a covered wrongful act may take place is the last day of the policy period. Accordingly, the policy will respond to a claim first made against the insured during the policy period, as long as the claim is based on a wrongful act that took place after the retroactive date
5 0026 [ST: 1] [ED: 10000] [REL: 2] Composed: Wed Oct 15 14:15:44 EDT [2][a] New Appleman Insurance Practice Guide As noted above, some policies may afford a short period after the policy expires in which an insurer may report a claim. The extended reporting period serves only to provide additional time in which to report a claim. It does not extend the time during which a covered wrongful act may take place [2] Consider the Continuous Course of Conduct Issue [2][a] When the Policy Is Silent on the Issue. One area of potential conflict arises when the insured has been engaged in a continuous course of conduct that begins before the retroactive date, and then continues after the retroactive date. Although not an EPL case, Mutual Fire, Marine & Inland Ins. Co. v. Vollmer [508 A.2d 130 (Md. 1986)] is instructive. The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that coverage existed under a claims-made malpractice policy for a continuing omission that began before the policy s retroactive date and continued after the retroactive date [id. at 134]. In the underlying case, a woman sued her doctor for failing to diagnose cancer. The doctor ordered an x-ray of the woman s lungs on July 26, While reviewing the x-ray, the doctor allegedly missed a tumor and instead diagnosed the woman with walking pneumonia. The woman alleged malpractice for the doctor s failure to diagnose the tumor as well as his failure to follow-up on her condition after the date of the x-ray. The doctor s malpractice insurer sought to deny coverage, arguing the malpractice occurred on July 26, 1975, when the doctor misdiagnosed the x-ray. Because the malpractice occurred before the August 1, 1975 retroactive date, the insurer contended that the claim fell outside of coverage. The court of appeals disagreed, finding that the plaintiff alleged an ongoing omission by the doctor that began before the retroactive date and continued past that date. The court held, The policy is silent on its application where malpractice is alleged to have been committed both before and after the retroactive date. Consequently, the rule applicable here is to resolve ambiguity against the drafter of the policy and in favor of coverage [id. at 134; but see Coregis Ins. Co. v. Blancato, 75 F. Supp. 2d 319 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (holding a policy did not cover a malpractice suit alleging an attorney missed a statute of limitation before the retroactive date but continued to represent client after the retroactive date)] [2][b] When the Policy Has a Continuous Course of Conduct Provision. Some policies expressly provide that a continuous course of conduct beginning before the retroactive date and continuing after that date will fall outside of the policy s coverage. For example, a policy might provide that the entirety of the wrongful conduct must take 41-26
6 0027 [ST: 1] [ED: 10000] [REL: 2] Composed: Wed Oct 15 14:15:44 EDT 2008 VER: [FM Master:23 Aug 08 10:45][MX-SECNDARY: 23 Sep 08 17:20][TT-: 23 Aug 08 10:46 loc=usa unit=60099-ch0041] 41 Understanding Employment Liability Insurance 41.12[2][b] place before the retroactive date. Under these circumstances, however, an insurer may have an obligation under the policy if the policyholder commits some independent wrongful act after the retroactive date [see Schultze v. Continental Ins. Co., 619 N.W.2d 510 (N.D. 2000)]. In Schultze, the claimant, an employee of the insured, alleged she had engaged in a sexual relationship with the insured for many years. The relationship began before the policy period and continued through the inception of the policy. During the policy period, the claimant ended the relationship. She claimed the insured then fired her and accused her of embezzlement. The claimant sued the insured for sexual harassment, wrongful discharge and defamation [id.]. The insurer denied coverage for the claim, asserting the wrongful employment practices began before the retroactive date in the policy. After its insured sued it, the insurer moved for summary judgment based on the retroactive date and the trial court granted the insurer s motion. On appeal, however, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed. The court found that the alleged relationship, the sexual discrimination and wrongful termination represented a continuous pattern that began before the prior acts date. The court agreed that if these had been the only allegations, then the insurer would have had no duty to defend under the policy [id. at 514]. The court ruled, however, that the defamation count arose after the retroactive date. The insured did not accuse the claimant of embezzlement until after the policy period began, and the court observed that the defamation count could have arguably arisen on its own, even in the absence of the sexual harassment allegations. Because the potential for coverage existed under the policy, the court ruled the insurer had a duty to defend [id. at 515]. z Strategic Point: There is little an insured can do to avoid the effect of the retroactive date. Often, claims that implicate the retroactive date also implicate several other coverage defenses, such as the known loss doctrine and/or misrepresentation on the policy application (these defenses are discussed below at 41.24[1]). If, however, the retroactive date is silent concerning a continuing course of conduct, a case exists for coverage for claims based on wrongful acts occurring after the retroactive date. If the policy bars coverage for events that begin before the retroactive date, as in Schultz, the insured may have to find some ground for coverage that arose independently after the retroactive date. If coverage is barred by the retroactive date, the insured should examine its occurrencebased coverage in effect at the time of the wrongful conduct
V. UNDERSTANDING THE RISKS INSURED UNDER EPL POLICIES.
0028 [ST: 1] [ED: 10000] [REL: 2] Composed: Wed Oct 15 14:15:45 EDT 2008 VER: [FM000150-Master:23 Aug 08 10:45][MX-SECNDARY: 23 Sep 08 17:20][TT-: 23 Aug 08 10:46 loc=usa unit=60099-ch0041] 43 V. UNDERSTANDING
Q UPDATE EXECUTIVE RISK SOLUTIONS CASES OF INTEREST D&O FILINGS, SETTLEMENTS AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
EXECUTIVE RISK SOLUTIONS Q1 2018 UPDATE CASES OF INTEREST U.S. SUPREME COURT FINDS STATE COURTS RETAIN JURISDICTION OVER 1933 ACT CLAIMS STATUTORY DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF TCPA FOUND TO BE PENALTIES AND
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D. C. Docket No CV-3-LAC-MD
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 09-15396 D. C. Docket No. 05-00401-CV-3-LAC-MD FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 JOHN LEY
Five Questions to Ask to Maximize D&O Insurance Coverage of FCPA Claims
Five Questions to Ask to Maximize D&O Insurance Coverage of FCPA Claims By Andrew M. Reidy, Joseph M. Saka and Ario Fazli Lowenstein Sandler Companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually to
Case 2:17-cv DAK Document 21 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH
Case 2:17-cv-00280-DAK Document 21 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH Kang Sik Park, M.D. v. Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER First American Title Insurance
PLF Claims Made Excess Plan
2019 PLF Claims Made Excess Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 1 SECTION I COVERAGE AGREEMENT... 1 A. Indemnity...1 B. Defense...1 C. Exhaustion of Limit...2 D. Coverage Territory...2 E. Basic Terms
When Trouble Knocks, Will Directors and Officers Policies Answer?
When Trouble Knocks, Will Directors and Officers Policies Answer? Michael John Miguel Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP Los Angeles, California The limit of liability theory lies within the imagination of the
Case 3:12-cv SCW Document 23 Filed 04/30/13 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #525 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case 3:12-cv-00999-SCW Document 23 Filed 04/30/13 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #525 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS CITY OF MARION, ILL., Plaintiff, vs. U.S. SPECIALTY
Navigating the Waters of Large SIRs and Deductibles
2016 CLM Annual Conference April 6-8, 2016 Orlando, FL Navigating the Waters of Large SIRs and Deductibles I. Issue: Is There a Duty to Defend Before the SIR is Satisfied? A. California In Evanston Ins.
This article was originally published in Law360 on May 15, 2015.
FCA Threats Are Likely Greatest Outside The Fortune 100 This article was originally published in Law360 on May 15, 2015. by Jeffrey A. Kiburtz and Joseph D. Jean Jeffrey A. Kiburtz Litigation +1.213.488.7155
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 No. 06-0867 444444444444 PINE OAK BUILDERS, INC., PETITIONER, V. GREAT AMERICAN LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
Deer Oaks Office Park Owners Association v. State Farm Lloyds Doc. 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION DEER OAKS OFFICE PARK OWNERS ASSOCIATION, CIVIL
RIGHT TO INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: OVERVIEW AND UPDATE
RIGHT TO INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: OVERVIEW AND UPDATE Wes Johnson Cooper & Scully, P.C. 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75202 4452 Telephone: 214 712 9500 Telecopy: 214 712 9540 Email: wes.johnson@cooperscully.com
Case 2:08-cv CEH-SPC Document 38 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FT.
Case 2:08-cv-00277-CEH-SPC Document 38 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FT. MYERS DIVISION NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. CASE
RECOVERING MORE INSURANCE FOR SEC AND INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS
RECOVERING MORE INSURANCE FOR SEC AND INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS By Mary Craig Calkins and Linda D. Kornfeld Recent decisions in the Office Depot, 1 MBIA, 2 and Gateway, Inc. 3 cases have refined the law
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYEES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, UNPUBLISHED January 27, 2004 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 242967 Oakland Circuit Court EXECUTIVE RISK INDEMNITY,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit January 18, 2012 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Cross-
Sharing the Misery: Defects with Construction Defect Coverage
CLM 2016 National Construction Claims Conference September 28-30, 2016 San Diego, CA Sharing the Misery: Defects with Construction Defect Coverage I. A brief history of the law regarding insurance coverage
Case 9:16-cv BB Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2017 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 9:16-cv-80987-BB Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2017 Page 1 of 9 THE MARBELLA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, and NORMAN SLOANE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA v. Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION. v. Judge John Robert Blakey MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
LLOYD S SYNDICATE 3624, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff, Case No. 18-cv-115 v. Judge John Robert Blakey BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE CENTER OF ILLINOIS, LLC,
CHANCES ARE... A FORTUITY CASE STUDY A POLICYHOLDER S PERSPECTIVE
CHANCES ARE... A FORTUITY CASE STUDY A POLICYHOLDER S PERSPECTIVE American College of Coverage and Extracontractual Counsel 5 th Annual Meeting Chicago, IL May 11 12, 2017 Presented by: Bernard P. Bell
Tarron L. Gartner-Ilai Cooper & Scully, PC 900 Jackson Street Suite 200 Dallas, Texas (214)
Tarron L. Gartner-Ilai Cooper & Scully, PC 900 Jackson Street Suite 200 Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 712-9570 Tarron.gartner@cooperscully.com 2018 This paper and/or presentation provides information on general
OF FLORIDA. An Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jeri B. Cohen, Judge.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM A.D., 2004 MALKE DUNAEVESCHI, vs. Appellant, AMERICAN
Case 1:15-cv LG-RHW Document 62 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:15-cv-00236-LG-RHW Document 62 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY PLAINTIFF/ COUNTER-DEFENDANT
Sometimes Offense Is the Best Defense: But Is It Covered?
Sometimes Offense Is the Best Defense: But Is It Covered? Once a suit is filed that triggers an insurer s duty to defend, defense counsel, the insured, and the insurer must work together to defend against
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No: 0:11-cv JIC.
James River Insurance Company v. Fortress Systems, LLC, et al Doc. 1107536055 Case: 13-10564 Date Filed: 06/24/2014 Page: 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 13-10564
Standard Mortgage Clause Preserves Coverage for Mortgagee Notwithstanding Carrier s Denial of Named Insured s Claim
Property Insurance Law Catherine A. Cooke Robbins, Salomon & Patt, Ltd., Chicago Standard Mortgage Clause Preserves Coverage for Mortgagee Notwithstanding Carrier s Denial of Named Insured s Claim The
Sifting for Coverage: Attorney Fee-Shifting Awards
Sifting for Coverage: Attorney Fee-Shifting Awards March 2, 2017 ABA Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee Conference Jan A. Larson, Jenner & Block LLP Karen Toto, Wiley Rein LLP Michael S. Levine, Hunton
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JGM TRANSPORTATION, INC., d/b/a JGM MACHINERY MOVERS AND ERECTORS, and CARL JENNINGS, UNPUBLISHED February 24, 2015 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 318032 Genesee Circuit
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI HATTIESBURG DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-232-KS-MTP
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Kavanaugh Supply, LLC et al Doc. 42 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI HATTIESBURG DIVISION NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE
ILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, v. URSZULA MARCHWIANY et al., Appellants. Docket No SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
Page 1 ILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, v. URSZULA MARCHWIANY et al., Appellants. Docket No. 101598. SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS 222 Ill. 2d 472; 856 N.E.2d 439; 2006 Ill. LEXIS 1116; 305 Ill.
ALLOCATION AMONG MULTIPLE CARRIERS IN CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION
ALLOCATION AMONG MULTIPLE CARRIERS IN CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION FRED L. SHUCHART COOPER & SCULLY, P.C. 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3850 Houston, Texas 77002 7th Annual Construction Law Symposium January
This Certificate Does Not Amend, Extend or Alter the Coverage Afforded Or Does It?
INSURANCE LAW Exploring Equitable Estoppel This Certificate Does Not Amend, Extend or Alter the Coverage Afforded Or Does It? By Kyle M. Heisner Courts throughout the country hold that certificates of
Case: 1:18-cv Document #: 39 Filed: 02/04/19 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:282
Case: 1:18-cv-01015 Document #: 39 Filed: 02/04/19 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:282 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PATRICIA RODRIGUEZ, v. Plaintiff,
ERISA Causes of Action *
1 ERISA Causes of Action * ERISA authorizes a variety of causes of action to remedy violations of the statute, to enforce the terms of a benefit plan, or to provide other relief to a plan, its participants
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
Affirmed and Opinion filed August 1, 2017. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-16-00263-CV RON POUNDS, Appellant V. LIBERTY LLOYDS OF TEXAS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the 215th District
Case 1:17-cv LTS Document 42 Filed 05/16/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:17-cv-11524-LTS Document 42 Filed 05/16/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. 17-11524-LTS KEYSTONE ELEVATOR SERVICE
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1106 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. BALTIMORE COUNTY, and Plaintiff - Appellee, Defendant Appellant, AMERICAN FEDERATION
Case 2:09-cv RK Document 55 Filed 04/18/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:09-cv-06055-RK Document 55 Filed 04/18/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE : CIVIL ACTION COMPANY, : : Plaintiff,
PCI Northeast General Counsel Seminar
PCI Northeast General Counsel Seminar September 18-19, 2017 Insurance Law Developments Laura A. Foggan Crowell & Moring LLP lfoggan@crowell.com 202-624-2774 Crowell & Moring 1 Zhaoyun Xia v. ProBuilders
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv TCB
Case: 16-16702 Date Filed: 01/23/2018 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-16702 D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-01740-TCB CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT
2013 YEAR IN REVIEW SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS IN 2013: INSURANCE LAW UPDATE. By Jennifer Kelley
SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 2013 YEAR IN REVIEW SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS IN 2013: INSURANCE LAW UPDATE By Jennifer Kelley Lennar Corp. v. Markel American Ins. Co., No. 11-0394, 2013 Tex. LEXIS 597 (Tex. Aug. 23,
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ANDERSON MILES, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED May 6, 2014 v No. 311699 Wayne Circuit Court STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE LC No. 10-007305-NF INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Continental Casualty Company v. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau: New York Court Decides Significant Asbestos Coverage Issues Against Insurer
Continental Casualty Company v. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau: New York Court Decides Significant Asbestos Coverage Issues Against Insurer May 15, 2007 OVERVIEW Following a 34-day bench trial,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO.
Alps Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Turkaly et al Doc. 50 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION ALPS PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE
Case 3:16-cv JPG-SCW Document 33 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #379 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case 3:16-cv-00040-JPG-SCW Document 33 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #379 CAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS v. Plaintiff, Case
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO RGS THE TALBOTS, INC. AIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-11107-RGS THE TALBOTS, INC. v. AIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT S MOTION TO DISMISS September
JANUARY 25, 2012 NO CA-0820 BASELINE CONSTRUCTION & RESTORATION OF LOUISIANA, L.L.C. COURT OF APPEAL VERSUS FOURTH CIRCUIT
BASELINE CONSTRUCTION & RESTORATION OF LOUISIANA, L.L.C. VERSUS FAVROT REALTY PARTNERSHIP D/B/A CHATEAUX DIJON APARTMENTS, CHATEAUX DIJON LAND, L.L.C., D/B/A CHATEAUX DIJON APARTMENTS, CDJ APARTMENTS,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM
GROSSMAN v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JACK GROSSMAN, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO.,
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-20522 Document: 00513778783 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/30/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT VADA DE JONGH, Plaintiff Appellant, United States Court of Appeals Fifth
Plaintiff, 08-CV-6260T DECISION v. and ORDER INTRODUCTION. Plaintiff Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, ( Bausch & Lomb or
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BAUSCH & LOMB INCORPORATED, LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, 08-CV-6260T DECISION v. and ORDER Defendant. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Bausch
TCPA Insurance Claim Issues Continue To Evolve
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com TCPA Insurance Claim Issues Continue To Evolve
Responding to Allegations of Bad Faith
Responding to Allegations of Bad Faith Matthew M. Haar Saul Ewing LLP 2 N. Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 257-7508 mhaar@saul.com Matthew M. Haar is a litigation attorney in Saul Ewing
Insurer v. Insurer: The Bases of an Insurer s Right to Recover Payment From Another Insurer*
Insurer v. Insurer: The Bases of an Insurer s Right to Recover Payment From Another Insurer* By: Thomas F. Lucas McKenna, Storer, Rowe, White & Farrug Chicago A part of every insurer s loss evaluation
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT JAMES MOTZENBECKER, ELIZABETH MOTZENBECKER, CHELSEA ACKERMECHT,
CYBER-CRIMES: How Have Courts Dealt with the Insurance Implications of this Emerging Risk? By Alan Rutkin
CYBER-CRIMES: How Have Courts Dealt with the Insurance Implications of this Emerging Risk? By Alan Rutkin Insurance coverage law has one firm rule: when a new risk emerges, new coverage issues follow.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D. C. Docket No.
Case: 13-13134 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 13-13134 Non-Argument Calendar D. C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-03483-SCJ [DO NOT PUBLISH]
Anderson Brothers, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co.
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Case Summaries 2013-2014 Anderson Brothers, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. Katelyn J. Hepburn University of Montana School of Law, katelyn.hepburn@umontana.edu
MEMORANDUM QUESTION PRESENTED. Analyze the merits of potential age discrimination claims under Maryland and
MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Hiring Attorney Lisa Solomon DATE May 23, 2005 RE: L v. S USA QUESTION PRESENTED Analyze the merits of potential age discrimination claims under Maryland and federal law in light of
Case: 1:10-cv Document #: 80 Filed: 11/02/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:348
Case: 1:10-cv-06289 Document #: 80 Filed: 11/02/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:348 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JUANA SANCHEZ, Plaintiff, v. No. 10 cv 6289
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON JANETTE LEDING OCHOA, ) ) No. 67693-8-I Appellant, ) ) DIVISION ONE v. ) ) PROGRESSIVE CLASSIC ) INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign ) corporation, THE PROGRESSIVE
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MONIQUE MARIE LICTAWA, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED March 23, 2004 v No. 245026 Macomb Circuit Court FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 01-005205-NF Defendant-Appellee.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 6:15-cv CEM-DCI. versus
Case: 17-11181 Date Filed: 08/22/2018 Page: 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 17-11181 D.C. Docket No. 6:15-cv-00718-CEM-DCI [DO NOT PUBLISH] HEALTH FIRST, INC.,
OF FLORIDA. ** Appellant, ** vs. CASE NO. 3D ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO TRIPP CONSTRUCTION, INC., ** Appellee. **
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2002 Appellant,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2007 STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Case No. 5D06-3147 JESSICA LORENZO F/K/A JESSICA DIBBLE, ET AL.,
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cv JDW-TGW
[PUBLISH] BARRY OPPENHEIM, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS lllllllllllllllllllllplaintiff - Appellee, versus I.C. SYSTEM, INC., llllllllllllllllllllldefendant - Appellant. FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Appellant, Lower Court Case No.: CC O
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO- MOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO.: CVA1-06 - 19 vs. CARRIE CLARK, Appellant, Lower Court Case
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February 10, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D14-720 Lower Tribunal No. 11-7085 Kerry Taylor,
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2012 ELIZABETH KATZ RICHARD KATZ
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2033 September Term, 2012 ELIZABETH KATZ v. RICHARD KATZ Eyler, Deborah S., Matricciani, Sharer, J. Frederick (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Vermont Bar Association 134 th Annual Meeting
Vermont Bar Association 134 th Annual Meeting Year in Review Insurance Law Seminar Materials Faculty Samuel Hoar, Jr., Esq. Paul J. Perkins, Esq. September 21, 2012 Lake Morey Resort, Fairlee, VT 2012
IDENTIFYING AND RESPONDING TO PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY CLAIMS
IDENTIFYING AND RESPONDING TO PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY CLAIMS New York State Bar Association Legal Malpractice 2017 Presented By: Matthew K. Flanagan, Esq. Catalano, Gallardo & Petropoulos, LLP 100 Jericho
United States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 03-2210 THOMAS BRADEMAS, et al., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, INDIANA HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United
IN COURT OF APPEALS. DECISION DATED AND FILED April 27, Appeal No DISTRICT III MICHAEL J. KAUFMAN AND MICHELLE KAUFMAN,
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED April 27, 2004 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY Notice: This is a Claims Made and Reported Policy. Please Read carefully. In consideration of the premium paid and in reliance upon the information provided
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-16588, 11/09/2015, ID: 9748489, DktEntry: 30-1, Page 1 of 7 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Counter-defendant- Appellee,
Decided: April 20, S15Q0418. PIEDMONT OFFICE REALTY TRUST, INC. v. XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: April 20, 2015 S15Q0418. PIEDMONT OFFICE REALTY TRUST, INC. v. XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY. THOMPSON, Chief Justice. Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. ( Piedmont
EXCESS V. PRIMARY: THE EXPANSION OF BAD FAITH DEFENSE CLAIMS IN LOUISIANA. Submitted by Ryan C. Higgins
EXCESS V. PRIMARY: THE EXPANSION OF BAD FAITH DEFENSE CLAIMS IN LOUISIANA Submitted by Ryan C. Higgins I. INTRODUCTION EXCESS V. PRIMARY: THE EXPANSION OF BAD FAITH DEFENSE CLAIMS IN LOUISIANA MARCH 30,
TRIGGER OF COVERAGE FOR WRONGFUL PROSECUTION CLAIMS IN 2016
TRIGGER OF COVERAGE FOR WRONGFUL PROSECUTION CLAIMS IN 2016 Benjamin C. Eggert Partner WILEY REIN LLP wileyrein.com Introduction Ideally, the criminal justice system would punish only the guilty, and
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI EASTERN DIVISION LEE AND MARY LINDA EDWARDS
Edwards et al v. GuideOne Mutual Insurance Company Doc. 99 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI EASTERN DIVISION LEE AND MARY LINDA EDWARDS VS. PLAINTIFFS CIVIL
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FH MARTIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 11, 2010 v No. 289747 Oakland Circuit Court SECURA INSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC., LC No. 2008-089171-CZ
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Debra Thompson, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 1227 C.D. 2016 : Submitted: January 13, 2017 Workers Compensation Appeal : Board (Exelon Corporation), : Respondent :
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS AMVD CENTER, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED June 28, 2005 v No. 252467 Calhoun Circuit Court CRUM & FORSTER INSURANCE, LC No. 00-002906-CZ and Defendant-Appellee,
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2016-0569, In the Matter of Liquidation of The Home Insurance Company, the court on October 27, 2017, issued the following order: Having considered
Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 34 Filed: 10/18/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:654
Case: 1:15-cv-10798 Document #: 34 Filed: 10/18/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:654 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED EXPLORER INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant,
Jerman And Its Effects On the Collection Industry
Jerman And Its Effects On the Collection Industry Presented By: Alan H. Weinberg, Managing Partner U.S. Supreme Court Only two Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) Cases have been before the United
CASE NO. 1D Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and J. Clifton Cox, Special Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA VERIZON BUSINESS PURCHASING, LLC, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
Case 2:17-cv SDW-CLW Document 23 Filed 02/07/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID: 1841 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY OPINION
Case 2:17-cv-05470-SDW-CLW Document 23 Filed 02/07/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID: 1841 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY KARIM ARZADI, JOWORISAK & ASSOCIATES, LLC,
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO EXHAUST AN UNDERLYING LAYER OF INSURANCE?
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO EXHAUST AN UNDERLYING LAYER OF INSURANCE? By Robert M. Hall Mr. Hall is an attorney, a former law firm partner, a former insurance and reinsurance executive and acts as an insurance
12 Pro Te: Solutio. edicare
12 Pro Te: Solutio edicare Medicare Secondary Payer Act TThe opportunity to resolve a lawsuit can present itself at almost any time during the course of personal injury litigation. A case may settle shortly
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PERMA-PIPE, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) No. 13 C 2898 ) vs. ) Judge Ronald A. Guzmán ) LIBERTY SURPLUS INSURANCE ) CORPORATION,
Second Circuit Signals That a Bare Violation of a Disclosure Statute Will Not Confer Standing
March 28, 2017 Second Circuit Signals That a Bare Violation of a Disclosure Statute Will Not Confer Standing In a February 23, 2017 summary decision in Ross v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company and
OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, 2004
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, 2004 LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE ** INSURANCE COMPANY, **
2018COA56. No. 17CA0098, Peña v. American Family Insurance Motor Vehicles Uninsured/Underinsured
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries
Second and Fifth Circuits Split on Who is Entitled to Whistleblower Protection Under Dodd-Frank
H Reprinted with permission from the Employee Relations LAW JOURNAL Vol. 41, No. 4 Spring 2016 SPLIT CIRCUITS Second and Fifth Circuits Split on Who is Entitled to Whistleblower Protection Under Dodd-Frank
Case 1:14-cv WPD Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2014 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:14-cv-20273-WPD Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2014 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA REBECCA CARBONELL, f/k/a REBECCA PLUT, individually, vs. Plaintiff,
MILTON PFEIFFER, Plaintiff, v. BJURMAN, BARRY & ASSOCIATES, and BJURMAN, BARRY MICRO CAP GROWTH FUND, Defendants. 03 Civ.
MILTON PFEIFFER, Plaintiff, v. BJURMAN, BARRY & ASSOCIATES, and BJURMAN, BARRY MICRO CAP GROWTH FUND, Defendants. 03 Civ. 9741 (DLC) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2006
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:16-cv CW
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED JUN 4 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS HOTCHALK, INC. No. 16-17287 v. Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:16-cv-03883-CW
2 of 2 DOCUMENTS. No. A COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE
Page 1 2 of 2 DOCUMENTS Positive As of: Dec 15, 2006 CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant, v. UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Crosscomplainant and Respondent.
CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE AFTER THE OMNI DECISION THE 6TH ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION SYMPOSIUM
CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE AFTER THE OMNI DECISION THE 6TH ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION SYMPOSIUM Prepared by: Jana S. Reist 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: 214-712-9512 Telecopy: 214-712-9540