Search Results (269)
Documents on Personal Injury, Insurance
Show: results per page
|Injuries Caused In Oilfield Mud Tank Not Subject To Insurance Policy’s Pollution Exemption|
Sutherland Asbill Brennan LLP;
July 16, 2014, previously published on July 10, 2014In December 2012, an oilfield worker for a services subcontractor specializing in the cleaning of mud tanks arrived at a worksite and proceeded to clean a tank at the instruction of the general contractor. The general contractor allegedly failed to inform the worker that the tank contained large...
|What is "Medical Expense Benefit" in a Personal Injury Case Involving Car Accidents?|
Tucker Griffin Barnes P.C.;
May 15, 2014, previously published on Fall 2013Many people fail to have medical expense benefit, generally known as "med pay." It is an extra coverage that you can buy on your car insurance policy.
|Underinsured Motorist Coverage Offer Does Not Require Price Quote|
S. David Childers; Kutak Rock LLP;
April 4, 2014, previously published on April 2, 2014On March 27, 2014, Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals issued its decision in Newman v. Cornerstone National Ins. Co., Case No. 1 CA-CV13-0082 (3/27/14), holding that a written offer of underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage does not require a corresponding premium price to be...
|Section D Denied: The Tucker Cases|
Matthew N. Craig; Stewart McKelvey;
March 19, 2014, previously published on Winter 2014In September 2012, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador released two concurrent decisions related to a collision between a pedestrian on a crosswalk and an unknown vehicle. The first decision, Tucker v. Unknown Person, dismissed the plaintiff's application to add his own automobile...
|Greene & Reid Talks About New York Automobile No-Fault Insurance|
John F. Hogan; Greene Reid PLLC;
February 14, 2014, previously published on February 2014Syracuse Personal Injury Attorneys Greene & Reid discuss how to best tackle the frustration of No-Fault Insurance Claims
|Fifth Circuit Affirms Ruling that Subcontractor Does Not Have the Duty to Defend or Indemnify General Contractor Pursuant to the Pleadings|
George B. Hall; Phelps Dunbar LLP;
February 10, 2014, previously published on January 29, 2014The Fifth Circuit applied Texas' "eight-corner" doctrine and affirmed a district court's ruling that a subcontractor did not owe the general contractor a duty to defend or indemnify pursuant to a plaintiff's complaint that did not allege negligence against the subcontractor. Weeks Marine,...
|Preliminary Injunction Denied for Certain Provisions of PIP Act|
Conroy Simberg Ganon Krevans Abel Lurvey Morrow Schefer P.A.;
January 2, 2014, previously published on December 13, 2013On December 12, 2012, the United States District Court in Tampa, in Robin A. Myers, A.P., et al. v. Kevin McCarty, Commissioner of Fl. Office of Insurance Regulation, Case No: 8:12-cv-2660-T-26TBM, issued an order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction wherein Plaintiffs, different...
|You Slip. You Fall. You Lose. Florida’s Updated Transient Foreign Substance Statute|
Alan C. Nash; Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C.;
December 18, 2013, previously published on December 17, 2013On July 1, 2010, Florida Statute § 768.0710 was supplanted by Florida Statute § 768.0755. A win for premises owners and insurance carriers, Florida Statute § 768.0755 imposed a greater burden of proof upon plaintiffs in slip and fall cases allegedly caused by transitory foreign...
|California Court of Appeal, Third District Holds In-House Attorney May Be Liable for Malpractice for Failing to Warn Employee About Conflict|
Nora A. Valenza-Frost, Barry Leigh Weissman; Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP;
December 6, 2013, previously published on December 4, 2013The California Court of Appeal, Third District, in Yanez v. Plummer, 2013 WL 5915639, Cal. Ct. App. 3d Dist., No. C070726 (Nov. 5, 2013) recently held that a former employee deposed in connection with a co-worker’s personal injury suit may pursue malpractice claims against in-house counsel...
|Excess Carrier Could Not Seek Reimbursement from the Primary Insurer Based On Its Rejection of a Claimant’s Settlement Offer Within Its Primary Limits Because There Was Not a Final Excess Judgment|
Troutman Sanders LLP;
November 28, 2013, previously published on November 25, 2013In RSUI Indemnity Co. v. Discover P&C Insurance Co, the primary insurer issued the insured a commercial automobile liability policy with a $1 million limit per-occurrence and in the aggregate, while an excess insurer issued the insured a policy with an additional $4 million in coverage. The insured...