Search for: "Safeco Insurance" Results 21 - 40 of 311
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jan 2010, 7:17 am by Mark S. Humphreys
The car is insured on hthe parents Safeco auto policy that was bought in Grand Prairie. [read post]
16 Jan 2007, 11:25 am
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments [transcript, PDF] Tuesday in the consolidated cases of Safeco Insurance v. [read post]
9 Apr 2010, 3:29 am by Chip Merlin
Safeco and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company claims practices impact the lives of millions of claimants. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 10:49 am by scanner1
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Defendant and Appellant. [read post]
27 May 2011, 2:14 am
  The court also held there was a triable issue of material fact as to whether Lloyd's unreasonably withheld consent to settlement.Lloyd's provided a professional liability policy to Safeco Insurance Company of North America ("Safeco"). [read post]
17 Jan 2007, 12:54 pm
Supreme Court on Tuesday, 1/16/07, to discuss the finer points of insurance law. [read post]
7 Sep 2021, 5:00 am by Kristin Parker
Circuits in holding that the “objective reasonableness” standard for determinations of scienter, as set forth by the Supreme Court in Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 10:07 am by Vivian Persand
This will be my second to last post on this decision, and I would like to start discussing the damages that were awarded.The Court began its decision about damages with the following: When an insurer acts in bad faith by denying benefits, it is liable to the insured in tort for any damages which are the proximate result of that conduct. [read post]
25 Sep 2007, 10:43 am
Here, a jury rejected a condo developer's case against its property insurer (Safeco) for decay to the structure due to rainwater infiltration caused by poor construction & Division One affirmed because: The ultimate loss -- decay to the building -- was an excluded loss, and therefore the ensuing loss doctrine did not apply. [read post]