The ongoing coverage litigation between H.J. Heinz Company and Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has yielded another important decision that is instructive in rescission matters.
Because the vast majority of U.S. publicly traded companies are incorporated in Delaware, legal developments in Delaware have a particularly important impact on legal standards governing corporate conduct in the U.S. Delaware law is particularly influential with respect to the responsibilities and potential liability exposures of corporate directors.
Earthquake insurance is not automatically included in a standard homeowners policy. However, insurance companies may provide coverage for earthquakes for an additional charge.
The question of whether a slip and fall that occurs within a hospital constitutes medical malpractice, rather than ordinary negligence, has been a much debated topic and one I have written about in depth before (See Professional vs. Ordinary Negligence in the Health Care Setting: Is It Time for a Bright Line Test? Medical Malpractice Law & Strategy. July, 2011).
Preapproved (prototype or volume submitter) defined contribution plans must be restated for the Pension Protection Act by April 30, 2016.
The Appeals Court of Massachusetts held that a first-party property policy’s ensuing loss provision did not restore coverage for the non-defective contents of a bottle rendered unsaleable by defective bottle caps.
Yesterday, the Court of Appeals issued yet another decision concerning when a lawsuit must be filed in order to be timely.
Today the Supreme Court entertained oral argument on yet another ERISA remedies case. In Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the Nat’l Elevator Indus. Health Benefit Plan, No. 14-723, the Court will again attempt to apply the phrase “appropriate equitable relief” to a plan’s claim for reimbursement of medical benefits.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, applying Texas law, has held that an excess insurer had no obligation to make any payments when a policyholder settled its claims against a primary insurer for less than the underlying limit, even if the policyholder paid the difference to “fill the gap” between the primary insurer’s payment and the underlying limit.