RocketTheme Joomla Templates
     
Home arrow Legal News
Legal News
LexisNexis« Mealey's? Insurance Legal News
Headline Insurance Legal News from LexisNexis«

LexisNexis® Headline Insurance Legal News
  • No Coverage Owed As Policies Were Not Validly Assigned, Delaware High Court Says
    DOVER, Del. - The Delaware Supreme Court on July 16 reversed a lower court's ruling in favor of an insured in an asbestos coverage dispute after determining that Texas law, which does not recognize the assignment of insurance policy rights without an insurer's consent, applies to the policies at issue and, therefore, no coverage is owed under the policies because the insured did not obtain the insurer's consent before assigning the policies at issue (The Travelers Indemnity Co. v. CNH Industrial America LLC, No. 420, 2017, Del. Sup., 2018 Del. LEXIS 334).

  • Delaware High Court Affirms Judgment In Asbestos Suit In Excess Insurers' Favor
    WILMINGTON, Del. - The Delaware Supreme Court on July 10 affirmed a lower court's ruling that Michigan law, rather than Delaware law, applies to excess insurance policies in an asbestos coverage dispute and that the excess insurers were required to respond only to claims that triggered covered under the primary policies (Motors Liquidation Co. DIP Lenders Trust v. Allstate Insurance Co., et al., No. 381, 2017, Del. Sup., 2018 Del. LEXIS 324).

  • Insurance Policies Possessed By Nonparty Are Relevant, Magistrate Judge Says
    BUFFALO, N.Y. - A nonparty company named as a defendant in underlying asbestos suits, along with an insured, must provide an insurer with information about insurance policies it possessed because the policies are relevant in determining the insurer's coverage obligations to its insured, a New York federal magistrate judge said July 16 (American Precision Industries Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., et al., No. 14-1050, W.D. N.Y., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117900).

  • No Coverage Owed For Pollution Liability Claim, Texas Federal Judge Says
    FORT WORTH, Texas - An insurer has no duty to defend an insured against a pollution liability claim because the policy's pollution exclusion clearly applies to bar coverage, a Texas federal judge said July 10 in granting the insurer's motion for summary judgment (Great American Insurance Co. v. Ace American Insurance Co., No. 18-114, N.D. Texas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114098).

  • Insured Permitted To Offer Evidence Related To Cessation Of Remediation Work
    KANSAS CITY, Mo. - A Missouri federal judge on July 12 denied an insurer's motion to exclude evidence related to an insured's cessation of environmental remediation work at a former ammunition plant owned by the insured after determining that the theory presented by the insured is not a new theory and, therefore, would not be prejudicial to the insurer (Sunflower Redevelopment LLC v. Illinois Union Insurance Co., No. 15-577, W.D. Mo., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116062).


Scott Strait