Insurance agents with clients who are in an acquisition mode may be interested in any recent court decision in Indiana. In this decision, the court determined that consent to assign provisions in occurrence policies do not necessarily preclude the acquiring company from seeking coverage under the policies. In Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. et. al vs. United States Filter Corp (see here, and here for a summary) the court made the following comments:The failure of the parties to comply with...
Read...Related Headlines
- Nationwide v. Leonard: Fifth Circuit upholds anti-concurrent cause provision as unambiguousposted 247 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- More on Northrop Grumman v. Factory Mutualposted 247 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- California U.S. District Court says Katrina storm surge is not excluded by excess policy's flood exclusionposted 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 247 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Initial impressions on Fifth Circuit's decision in In Re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigationposted 251 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Fifth Circuit hears arguments in Leonard v. Nationwide Katrina appealposted 250 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- More misunderstandings of anti-concurrent cause languageposted 245 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
-
First party property causation, New England style
posted 219 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
-
Abracadabra: anti-concurrent cause and the search for 'illusory' insurance coverage
posted 168 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog