The debate over health care plans cancelling policies for members who incur significant claims on the grounds that they omitted or misstated information on their original applications for coverage (a practice called "rescission") is instructive. Few defend the right of consumers to lie on their applications. In addition, few maintain the carriers haven't overreached in [...]
Read...Related Headlines
- Fifth Circuit hears arguments in Leonard v. Nationwide Katrina appealposted 250 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Nationwide v. Leonard: Fifth Circuit upholds anti-concurrent cause provision as unambiguousposted 246 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- More on Northrop Grumman v. Factory Mutualposted 247 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Landry v. Citizens Property: Louisiana Court of Appeals sows confusion, messes up causation analysis in Hurricane Rita cposted 246 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Fifth Circuit hears oral arguments in Tuepker v. State Farm Katrina caseposted 245 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Commentary on Fifth Circuit's decision in Tuepker v. State Farmposted 237 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
-
Colorado Court of Appeals: anti-concurrent cause provision bars coverage where covered snow combined with uncovereposted 198 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- State Farm, homeowners settle Katrina case in Mississippi state courtposted 241 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Louisiana Fourth Circuit finds flood exclusion ambiguousposted 235 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
-
Louisiana Fourth Circuit finds flood exclusion ambiguous
posted 235 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog