Search for: "A B C Insurance" Results 181 - 200 of 5,794
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Nov 2010, 1:11 am by M. Scott Koller
§ 2689.8(c)(3), upon the recommendation of the California Department of Insurance and Insurance Commissioner (and unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate) Steve Poizner. [read post]
23 Nov 2010, 1:11 am by Scott Koller
§ 2689.8(c)(3), upon the recommendation of the California Department of Insurance and Insurance Commissioner (and unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate) Steve Poizner. [read post]
27 Aug 2011, 6:48 am by Mark S. Humphreys
Question 4 inquired as to whether Mayes within the past five years: (A) had been treated by a physician; (B) had been treated or observed in a hospital; or (C) had undergone an electrocardiogram. [read post]
27 Dec 2017, 10:15 am by Gail Cecchettini Whaley
The deadline for employers to provide Form 1095-B, Health Coverage or Form 1095-C, Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage to employees is March 2, 2018, (extended from January 31, 2018). [read post]
5 Dec 2018, 10:07 am by HRWatchdog
The deadline for providing Form 1095-B, Health Coverage and Form 1095-C, Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage to employees is now March 4, 2019, (extended from January 31, 2019). [read post]
22 Nov 2016, 9:17 am by Gail Cecchettini Whaley
The deadline for employers to provide Form 1095-B, Health Coverage or Form 1095-C, Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage to employees is March 2, 2017 (extended from January 31, 2017). [read post]
3 Nov 2021, 11:00 pm
All the parties to the litigation which gave rise to that appeal stipulated that: (a) Ismet Islami did not commit or conspire to commit any act with the intent of damaging the insured property at issue in that case; (b) Ismet Islami did not engage in concealment or fraud at any time relevant to the subject lawsuit; and (c) Ismet Islami was an “innocent insured” victim of the arson at issue in that case. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 8:56 am by Peter Vodola
  This freedom of assignment is not limited by § 3205(b)(2), which addresses procurement of an insurance policy on another's life, 'either directly or by assignment,' because § 3205(b)(2) requires an insurable interest only 'at the time when such contract is made' (Insurance Law § 3205[b][2]), that is, when such insurance is initially procured. [read post]
8 Dec 2015, 6:21 am by Mark S. Humphreys
If no value is shown for a scheduled item then there is no coverage for that item; or c. [read post]
16 May 2012, 6:34 am by Denise Sze
Like in Coverage B, more monetary coverage for Coverage C may be purchased at an additional premium agreed on with the insurer; Coverage D is specialty coverage for loss of use. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 9:26 am
(2) When an insured has prevailed on a claim pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph 28 (1) of this subsection, the court in its discretion may hold the insurer liable to the insured for reasonable attorney's fees and expenses of litigation for the prosecution of the case under this Code section that were incurred after the sixtieth day of the demand made by the insured [read post]
10 Dec 2021, 6:53 pm by matt
Those include the following: (A) Your or your driver’s underinsured motorist benefits: (B) Your or your driver’s personal injury protection benefits: (C) Your or a family member’s health insurance policies: (D) Short and long-term disability policies (E) Workers compensation benefits (F) Medicare benefits (G) Medicaid benefits 3. [read post]
2 Jul 2017, 3:10 am by Chip Merlin
The new law has other significant changes, especially regarding public adjuster apprentices, but today, I focus on the following: 19) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, no person, except an attorney at law or a public adjuster, may for money, commission, or any other thing of value, directly or indirectly: (a) Prepare, complete, or file an insurance claim for an insured or a third- party claimant; (b) Act on behalf of or aid an insured or a third-party… [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 1:40 pm by Michael Thomas
The court directed a trial of an issue under Rule 38.10(1)(b) with regard to the coverage implications of the 'excluded driver' endorsement in relation to the insured. [read post]