Search for: "Woodman v. Woodman" Results 1 - 20 of 66
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Nov 2021, 8:08 am by Dan Bressler
There may be many circumstances in which that level of cover is not available to meet a claim, for example – A) Multiple similar claims may be subject to a single limit of indemnity due to the operation of the aggregation clause, as the SRA will be only too well aware, having intervened in the leading case on the point in the Supreme Court, AIG Europe Ltd v Woodman [2017] UKSC 18 – and the facts of the present SDLT scheme case involved multiple similar instructions; B)… [read post]
24 Jul 2020, 3:00 am by James Romoser
Brandon Evans of S&P Global Platts examines how the court’s recent ruling in McGirt v. [read post]
20 Sep 2017, 2:00 am by Patrick Bracher
The UK Supreme Court in AIG Europe Limited v Woodman dealt with a situation where the transactions in question involved an investment in two development schemes in Turkey under a contractual arrangement subject to a trust deed and an escrow agreement. [read post]
22 Mar 2017, 3:57 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
On appeal from: [2016] EWCA Civ 367   This appeal considered what the true construction of the words ‘in a series of related matters or transactions’ is within the aggregation clause of a professional indemnity insurance policy. [read post]
20 Mar 2017, 2:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
AIG Europe Ltd v Woodman & Ors, heard 10 October 2016. [read post]
13 Mar 2017, 2:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
AIG Europe Ltd v Woodman & Ors, heard 10 October 2016. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
AIG Europe Ltd v Woodman & Ors, heard 10 October 2016. [read post]
27 Feb 2017, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
AIG Europe Ltd v Woodman & Ors, heard 10 October 2016. [read post]
20 Feb 2017, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
AIG Europe Ltd v Woodman & Ors, heard 10 October 2016. [read post]
13 Feb 2017, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
AIG Europe Ltd v Woodman & Ors, heard 10 October 2016. [read post]