You searched for pennsylvania - Page 6 of 9 - The Insurance & Reinsurance Report

September 17, 2012 Reinsurance

Reinsurer Avoids Asbestos Defense Costs

Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. Global Reinsurance Corp. of America
(3d Cir. Sept. 7, 2012)
On September 7, 2012, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed a lower court ruling holding Global Reinsurance Corp. (Global) accountable for $1 million in asbestos litigation costs paid by Pacific Employers Insurance Co. (Pacific), finding that Pacific did not promptly notify Global.

The court said that Pacific was obligated to notify Global of the asbestos suits facing manufacturing company Buffalo Forge Co. as soon as Pacific …

July 3, 2012 Uncategorized

Cases for CaseWatch: Insurance July 2012 Edition

Cases are provided with the permission of Lexis.

Ace Am. Ins. Co. V. Christiana Ins., LLC

Axis Surplus Ins. Co. v. Glencoe Ins. Ltd.

Beckman v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co.

Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Law Offices of Melbourne Mills, Jr., PLLC

Crane Collapse Litigation

Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Earthsoils, Inc.

Feldman Law Group v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,

Feldman Law Group, P.C. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

Fulton County Emples. Ret. Sys. v. MGIC Inv. Corp.

Golinski v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management…

May 25, 2012 Uncategorized

Excess of Loss Facultative Reinsurance Certificate Covers Indemnity and Expenses

Ace Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. R & Q Reinsurance Co.
(Pa. C.P. May 15, 2012)

The Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas was asked to interpret the meaning of the terms “loss” and “expense” in multiple reinsurance certificates issued by defendant, a reinsurance company (hereinafter “reinsurer”), to plaintiff, a property and casualty insurance company (hereinafter “insurer”). The reinsurer argued that the term “loss”, which is not defined in the reinsurance certificates, means indemnity only. The insurer, on the other hand, argued that the meanings …

April 17, 2012 Uncategorized

Settling Insurer Not Absolved of Contribution for Defense Cost

Potomac Insurance Company of Illinois v. Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company(Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, April 13, 2012)

In a case of first impression, the Superior Court of New Jersey held that settlement with the insured of a contested coverage claim did not eliminate co-insurers rights to seek reimbursement for defense costs. In deciding the first case on the issue, the Superior Court adopted the California rule, allowing a direct right of action between co-insurers of the same risk on the basis of …

November 15, 2011 Emerging Issues

U.S. Supreme Court To Review Health Care Reform Law

Dept. of Health and Human Services v. Florida; NFIB v. Sebelius; and Florida v. HHS, November 14, 2011

On Monday, November 14, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court had decided to determine the constitutionality of the sweeping health care reform law, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”), proposed by President Barack Obama. The announcement was made via a brief order issued on Monday.

Oral arguments are likely to be scheduled for late February or March, with a ruling possibly as early as June. The court …

November 7, 2011 CaseWatch

CaseWatch: Insurance November 2011 Edition Now Available!

For a free copy, please click here.

If you would like to receive future editions of CaseWatch: Insurance directly by email, please contact Sarah Delaney at [email protected].

We also include the inaugural edition of the inaugural issue of The Appeals Attorneys, a new Goldberg Segalla newsletter that provides timely summaries and access to cases that the highest courts in New York (and soon Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) will address in the near future. For a freee copy, click here. If you would like …

September 16, 2011 Professional Liability Monthly

Cases for Professional Liability Monthly – September 2011 Edition

Cases provided courtesy of Lexis.

Overland Leasing Group LLC v. First Fin. Corp. Servs., Inc.

Continental Casualty Co. v. Jones

Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Saphir

Chesbrough v. VPA, P.C.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Johnson

O'Connell Flaherty & Attmore, LLC v. Richter

McKeen v. Continental Casualty Co.

Greenwald v. Kantha…

June 20, 2011 Reinsurance

Reinsurer Must Prove Prejudice to Avoid Coverage Based on Late Notice

Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Global Reins. Corp. of Am. (E.D. Pa. May 23, 2011)

In a matter of first impression in Pennsylvania, a federal court in Pennsylvania held that a reinsurer must demonstrate prejudice in order to avoid its coverage obligation based on the cedant’s failure to comply with the reinsurance certificate’s notice provisions. In so holding, the court noted that Pennsylvania law does not favor forfeiture of coverage for a technical breach of the insurance contract, a maxim that also applies in the …

June 13, 2011 Uncategorized

California Appellate Court Reverses Lower Court on Asbestos Coverage Dispute Involving “Single Occurrence” Issues

Kaiser Cement & Gypsum Corp. v. Ins. Co. of the State of Pennsylvania (Cal. App. 2d Dist. June 3, 2011)

Plaintiff manufactured a variety of asbestos-containing materials, including joint compound, finishing compounds, fiberboard, and plastic cements, from 1944 through the 1970s.. By 2004, the company faced more than 24,000 claims from people alleging they suffered bodily injuries as a result of their exposure to asbestos contained in the company’s products.

In 2007, the court considered whether thousands of asbestos bodily injury claims brought against the …

June 1, 2011 Emerging Issues

Insurer Sues To Block Coverage For Suits Involving Stolen Body Parts

State Automobile Ins. Co. v. Garzone Funeral Home Inc. E.D. Penn., May 27, 2011

Plaintiff insurer filed suit against defendant policyholder, seeking to avoid indemnity for a host of lawsuits over the harvesting and sale of body parts from bodies at the Philadelphia funeral home. The underlying actions by the families of the deceased allege that defendants and others conspired to sell body parts of corpses.

Plaintiff insurer files the current suit seeking an order declaring that it does not have a duty to defend …