Document(s) published by this organization: 60
Show: results per page
|New Jersey Federal District Court Sheds Light on “Use of Motor Vehicle” Standard in New Jersey Omnibus Statute|
Davis J. Kim, Jonathan Schapp; Goldberg Segalla LLP;
November 26, 2014, previously published on November 25, 2014In Carolina Casualty Insurance Co. v. Travelers Property Casualty Co., Civ. No. 09-4871, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150002 (Oct. 22, 2014), the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey interpreted the “use of a motor vehicle” standard under New Jersey’s omnibus motor...
|Fifth Circuit: Claimant Must Wait for Actual Claim Denial to File Suit|
Fallyn B. Cavalieri, Sarah J. Delaney; Goldberg Segalla LLP;
November 26, 2014, previously published on November 17, 2014In an unpublished opinion, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a class action suit that alleged the claim administrator, wrongfully denied payment of medical claims “immediately,” instead of waiting for the participant to fail to provide requested information. In this case, the...
|What’s in Your Breakfast Sanwich? The Eighth Circuit Weighs in on Accidental Product Contamination Policies and Voluntary Product Recalls|
Michael S. Saltzman, Joel J. Terragnoli; Goldberg Segalla LLP;
November 26, 2014, previously published on November 26, 2014In Hot Stuff Foods, LLC v. Houston Casualty Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21727 (8th Cir. Nov. 17, 2014), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a lower court decision holding that a food company’s voluntary recall was covered under an ‘accidental product...
|You Get What You Pay For: Title Insurers Need Only Defend Claims Explicitly Covered in Policy|
Aaron J. Aisen, Marc W. Brown; Goldberg Segalla LLP;
November 26, 2014, previously published on November 19, 2014On November 13, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided in a case of first impression that the “complete defense” rule does not apply to title insurers and overturned the Northern District of Illinois’s ruling in Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co. that...
|Oregon Federal District Court Gives Insurer Partial Win in Superfund Case|
Joanna M. Roberto, Paul C. Steck; Goldberg Segalla LLP;
November 26, 2014, previously published on November 17, 2014In Siltronic Corp. v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau, No. 3:11-cv-1493, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153275 (D. Or. Oct. 28, 2014), an Oregon federal court granted partial summary judgment for the insured Siltronic Corp. (Siltronic), finding the insurer Employers Insurance Company of Wausau (Wausau) had a...
|Oregon Federal District Court Rejects Coverage for Trademark Infringement Under Coverage B|
Jonathan L. Schwartz, Colin B. Willmott; Goldberg Segalla LLP;
November 26, 2014, previously published on November 18, 2014In Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Co, v. Willowood USA, LLC, et al., Civ. No. 6:13-cv-01923-MC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153363 (D. Or. Oct. 27, 2014), the district court of Oregon granted summary judgment in favor of Crum & Specialty Insurance Company, Allied World Assurance Company, and...
|Upcoming Supreme Court Decision Could Change the EEOC Litigation Landscape for Employers|
Caroline J. Berdzik, Jennifer M. Mannion; Goldberg Segalla LLP;
November 12, 2014, previously published on October 31, 2014A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on whether and to what extent a court may enforce the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) mandatory duty to conciliate discrimination claims before filing suit could significantly change the landscape of EEOC litigation for employers. The...
|Employer Dress Code Policies Under the Microscope as Supreme Court Reviews Abercrombie & Fitch Case|
Goldberg Segalla LLP;
October 28, 2014, previously published on October 17, 2014A suit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against national clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., demonstrates why employers should carefully review any dress code policies with counsel, particularly as they may conflict with attire worn for religious...
|Employers Must Prepare for Scrutiny as Federal and State Labor Departments Join Together to Fight Employee Misclassification|
Caroline J. Berdzik, David E. Leach; Goldberg Segalla LLP;
October 17, 2014, previously published on October 10, 2014Employers across the country continue to misclassify workers as independent contractors rather than as employees, and as we recently saw in Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., such actions can result in litigation and federal and state scrutiny.
|Ninth Circuit Ruling on Misclassification of Independent Contractors Has Major Ramifications for Employers|
Goldberg Segalla LLP;
September 30, 2014, previously published on September 25, 2014In Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16585 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2014), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that former Federal Express drivers were employees rather than independent contractors pursuant to California’s right-to-control test. This important...