Join Matindale-Hubbell Connected



Search Results (6494)

  
Documents on insurance
 

View Page: Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  >>
Show: results per page
Sort by:
Sponsored Results

HTMLIn This Superstorm Sandy Case, Insured Allowed To Proceed On Bad Faith Claim Where Insurer Refused To Engage In Appraisal Process, But Court Dismisses Bad Faith Claim Based Upon Alleged Undue Influence On Insured’s Roofing Contractor (Philadelphia Federal)
Fineman Krekstein Harris P.C.;
Legal Alert/Article
September 24, 2014, previously published on September 18, 2014
Currie v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., involved damage to the insured’s home from Superstorm Sandy, and a dispute over the homeowner insurer’s payment obligation. The matter was before the court on summary judgment. After finding summary judgment could not be granted on the...

 

HTMLIdentification of Public Project Payment Bond Claimants
Harry Z. Rippeon; Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
September 24, 2014, previously published on September 17, 2014
Prime contractors working on public projects are often required to provide a payment bond to ensure adequate financial protection for those subcontractors and suppliers providing labor, materials, equipment, or other services. For federal government projects, this requirement is contained in the...

 

HTMLBad Faith Claim Not Time Barred Based on Date of Denial Triggering Cause of Action; Common Law Bad Faith Claim Subsumed in Breach of Contract Claim, Which Had Been Dismissed on Basis of Contractual Limitations Period (Philadelphia Federal)
Fineman Krekstein Harris P.C.;
Legal Alert/Article
September 24, 2014, previously published on September 19, 2014
In Blackwell v. Allstate Insurance Company, the court found that the contractual one year period for bringing a claim under a homeowners policy barred the insureds breach of contract claim; however, the statutory bad faith claim was not barred by that contractual term, nor, on the face of the...

 

HTMLInsureds Liable for Over $800,000 under New Jersey’s Insurance Fraud Protection Act; Insurer Not Required to Return Premiums as Predicate for Recovery in Case Where Fraud is Alleged in Making a Claim on the Policy, Not in Procuring the Policy (New Jersey Appellate Division)
Fineman Krekstein Harris P.C.;
Legal Alert/Article
September 24, 2014, previously published on September 19, 2014
In Masaitis v. Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company, the jury not only ruled that the insureds were not entitled to compensation from the insurer for a fire loss to their home, but there was a judgment awarding more than $800,000 against them under N.J.S.A. 17:33A-7(a), a provision of the...

 

HTMLWisconsin Court of Appeals Provides a Lesson in Documenting the Settlement
Rachel M. Blise; Foley & Lardner LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
September 23, 2014, previously published on September 22, 2014
A recent case from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals demonstrates the necessity of properly documenting the details of a settlement after agreement is reached on the amount. In Singler v. Zurich American Insurance Co., 2014AP391, Robert Singler and Zurich American Insurance Co. agreed to settle...

 

Adobe PDFProposed Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps Under Dodd-Frank: Federal Reserve Board, OCC, FDIC, Farm Credit Administration and Federal Housing Finance Agency Repropose Rules for Minimum Margin and Capital Requirements for Certain Dealers and Major Participants in Swaps and Security-Based Swaps
Sullivan Cromwell LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
September 23, 2014, previously published on September 10, 2014
On September 3, 2014, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), the Farm Credit Administration and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (collectively, the “Prudential Regulators”) issued a proposed rule to...

 

Adobe PDFBasel III Liquidity Framework: Federal Reserve Approves Final Rule Implementing Basel III Liquidity Coverage Ratio for Large U.S. Banks
Sullivan Cromwell LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
September 23, 2014, previously published on September 9, 2014
On Wednesday, September 3, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC” and, together with the Federal Reserve and...

 

Adobe PDFSecurity-Based Swaps: SEC Proposes Rule Regarding Communications Involving Security-Based Swaps Entered Into Solely by Eligible Contract Participants
Sullivan Cromwell LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
September 23, 2014, previously published on September 10, 2014
On September 8, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed a rule under the Securities Act of 1933 to provide that the publication or distribution of price quotes relating to security-based swaps that may be purchased only by eligible contract participants and are traded or processed...

 

HTMLWhere Policy Clearly Excludes Coverage For Wall Collapse, With No Applicable Exception For Hidden Decay, There Can Be No Bad Faith Because Carrier Had Reasonable Basis To Deny Claim (Philadelphia Federal)
Fineman Krekstein Harris P.C.;
Legal Alert/Article
September 23, 2014, previously published on September 16, 2014
In White v. Metropolitan Direct Property & Casualty Insurance Co., the insureds suffered a wall collapse, which they originally claimed was “sudden and accidental” and the result of a heavy rain (which was later denied by them). Coverage was denied, and the insureds sued for breach...

 

HTMLState Trial Court, Following Superior Court, Holds That Bad Faith Can Go Beyond A Pure Denial, And Can Include Bad Faith In Investigating And Communicating With Insured; Then Finding That Some Of These Claims Were Time Barred, But Others Must Be Determined By The Triers Of Fact, In Only Granting Partial Summary Judgment To Excess Carrier (Centre County Common Pleas)
Fineman Krekstein Harris P.C.;
Legal Alert/Article
September 23, 2014, previously published on September 17, 2014
In Mountainside Holdings, LLC v. American Dynasty Surplus Lines Ins. Co., the defendant insurers were excess directors and officers liability insurance carriers at the tertiary level, with primary coverage and the first layer of excess coverage providing $10,000,000 in coverage. The dispute arose...

 


View Page: Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  >>