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
  • Federal Judge Says Bad Faith Claim Is Not Contingent On Insurer's Duty To Indemnify
    ST. LOUIS - A Missouri federal judge on Sept. 30 granted an insured's motion for summary judgment on an insurer's affirmative defenses to the insured's bad faith failure to settle counterclaim after determining that the bad faith claim is not contingent on whether the insurer had a duty to indemnify the insured for a $300 million settlement of underlying bodily injury claims stemming from the insured's lead-smelting operations (Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Fluor Corp., et al., No. 16-429, E.D. Mo., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168333).

  • High Court Denies Review Of Recusal Decision In Lead Paint Poisoning Coverage Suit
    WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 7 denied a petition for writ of certiorari in a lead paint poisoning coverage suit, refusing to consider whether the plaintiffs' state and federal constitutional due process rights were violated by a trial court judge's refusal to recuse himself (Jonathan Quinn, et al., v. Truck Insurance Exchange, et al., No. 19-173, U.S. Sup.).

  • Pro Rata Allocation Method Is Proper For Lead-Based Exposure Claims, Judge Says
    BALTIMORE - A Maryland federal judge on Oct. 1 denied a defendant's motion to stay an insurer's suit seeking a coverage declaration for an underlying lead exposure claim and denied the defendant's motion for certification on the proper allocation method for the lead-based exposure claim after determining that Maryland state and federal courts have established that the pro rata allocation method is the proper method for lead-based exposure claims (Allstate Insurance Co. v. Tornesha Gaines, et al., No. 19-239, D. Md., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170042).

  • Judge Enters Judgment Of $6.25M Against Reinsurer In Asbestos Settlements Dispute
    UTICA, N.Y. - Pursuant to a jury verdict, a New York federal judge on Oct. 1 entered judgment in favor of an insurer and against its reinsurer under two separate reinsurance certificates in the amount of $6.25 million in a dispute between the parties over coverage for settlements of asbestos claims (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 13-995, N.D. N.Y.).

  • Federal Asbestos Coverage Suit Stayed Until Parallel State Lawsuit Is Resolved
    CINCINNATI - An Ohio federal judge on Oct. 2 stayed an insured's breach of contract and bad faith suit arising out of an insured's liability for underlying asbestos claims after determining that the insured's federal suit presents the same issues as a prior state court lawsuit filed by the insured and currently on appeal (William Powell v. National Indemnity Co. et al., No. 14-807, S.D. Ohio, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170833).

Scott Strait