Search for: "Royal Indemnity Company" Results 1 - 20 of 46
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Dec 2023, 7:37 am by Kevin LaCroix
The company’s “directing mind and will” has usually been restricted in the UK to directors and senior officers. [read post]
1 Dec 2023, 7:50 am by Jon L. Gelman
On November 8, 2023, Arrowood Indemnity Company, a Delaware domestic property and casualty insurance company (“Arrowood”) was ordered liquidated by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the “Court”).Arrowood was incorporated in 1979 under its former name, Royal Indemnity Company, and was headquartered in Charlotte, NC. [read post]
12 Oct 2023, 9:01 pm by renholding
In theory, insurance companies and funders should only agree to such an arrangement if they are comfortable with the risk and level of coverage. [read post]
9 Jan 2023, 4:19 am by INFORRM
In the wake of the leaked details of revelations made by Prince Harry in his forthcoming book Spare, some commentators have argued that the royal may have significantly undermined his own future right to privacy. [read post]
24 May 2022, 4:55 am by Nathan Dorn
In the following year, he joined a company of 300 Englishmen led by Philip Beaver, an officer in the Royal Navy, that aimed to create a colony on the island of Bolama off the coast of then Portuguese Guinea. [read post]
17 Jun 2020, 1:12 am by Michael Douglas
By Michael Douglas and Mhairi Stewart Andrew Bell is a leader of private international law in Australia. [read post]
Surveillance practices, delays in indemnity decisions and settlement payments and the appropriateness of information requests are all matters that will require attention under the new regime. [read post]
30 Aug 2019, 1:15 am by INFORRM
In January 2017, for example, Royal Sun Alliance (RSA) was fined £150,000 after a portable network attached storage device was stolen from a physical data server room. [read post]
10 Jun 2019, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
On Tuesday 11 June, the Supreme Court will hear the appeal of Travelers Insurance Company Ltd v XYZ. [read post]
1 Jul 2018, 4:08 pm by INFORRM
USA today has noted how social media companies may reach critical mass and become “too big to succeed”. [read post]
5 Apr 2018, 5:39 am by Mark S. Humphreys
  This is explained in the 1996, Southern District of Texas opinion styled, Royal Indemnity Insurance Co. v. [read post]
20 Mar 2017, 2:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, heard 14 February 2017. [read post]
3 Dec 2016, 8:15 am by Alex Young
Rapid Fire Legal Issues    a) New Condo Act Bill 106 (i.e. the new Condo Act), which amends the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Condo Act”), has received Royal Assent, but it is not yet law, as the regulations thereunder have not been released. [read post]
3 Dec 2016, 8:15 am by Alex Young
Rapid Fire Legal Issues    a) New Condo Act Bill 106 (i.e. the new Condo Act), which amends the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Condo Act”), has received Royal Assent, but it is not yet law, as the regulations thereunder have not been released. [read post]
3 Dec 2016, 8:15 am by Alex Young
Rapid Fire Legal Issues    a) New Condo Act Bill 106 (i.e. the new Condo Act), which amends the Condominium Act, 1998 (the “Condo Act”), has received Royal Assent, but it is not yet law, as the regulations thereunder have not been released. [read post]
18 Sep 2016, 5:00 am by Barry Sookman
Sex toy maker sued over collection of intimate data https://t.co/ORoSloRw5d -> No implied license, copyright infringement, no copyright misuse, Royal Conservatory of Music v. [read post]
27 Jun 2016, 1:47 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Commissioners for the HMRC v The Investment Trust Companies (in liquidation) & Ors, heard 17–19 May 2016. [read post]
17 Mar 2016, 5:58 am by Mark S. Humphreys
Murchison became and were entitled to recover of said Royal Indemnity Company the proceeds of said policy still in its hands, as the heirs and next of kin of the said R.H. [read post]
21 Feb 2016, 4:28 pm by INFORRM
 He struck out a defence which contended that “dishonesty” was an opinion and ordered indemnity costs. [read post]