Search for: "Department of Insurance v. Doe"
Results 441 - 460
of 2,957
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Feb 2015, 5:48 am
” In other words, said the court, “the moratorium statute does not permit an employer to whom the statute applies to provide [its] retirees with lesser health insurance benefits than [its] active employees. [read post]
6 Oct 2016, 2:46 pm
Now, in Holt v. [read post]
30 Nov 2012, 6:40 am
This subparagraph does not apply to claims under flood policies issued under the national flood insurance program. [read post]
1 May 2009, 6:43 am
Co., 75 NY2d 747, 749 [1989] [exclusions from coverage "construed strictly against the insurer"]; Breed v Insurance Co. of N. [read post]
15 Dec 2008, 7:56 am
Although the decision does not identify the other "et al. [read post]
10 Apr 2023, 5:09 am
Corp. v Insurance Co. of N. [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 7:00 am
This has been spelled out in the Texas Supreme Court case, Allstate Insurance Company v. [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 9:08 am
Bank v. [read post]
8 Jul 2013, 1:10 pm
(Howard v. [read post]
9 Nov 2014, 4:35 pm
Slade v. [read post]
22 Jan 2011, 7:47 pm
At what point does a deductible cease being a deductible? [read post]
12 Mar 2009, 4:15 am
In Fraser v Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 135 F. [read post]
6 Nov 2021, 9:59 am
Co. v. [read post]
29 Mar 2009, 1:31 pm
In AFFIRMING the motion court's order granting summary judgment to Liberty, the Second Department ruled: In determining whether an insurance carrier has a duty to defend under a professional liability policy, the point of departure is a comparison between the complaint against the insured and the language of the policy (see Cohen v Employers Reinsurance Corp., 117 AD2d 435, 438). [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 6:45 am
Co. v. [read post]
3 Aug 2009, 6:26 am
Chief Justice Kelly’s opinion: a) Examined the parameters of stare decisis to determine whether the Court could depart from its earlier approach, in Lansing Mayor v. [read post]
14 Nov 2024, 9:52 pm
Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. [read post]
3 Aug 2015, 12:07 pm
Since violation of these out-of-pocket maximums (as well as many other federal health benefit rules) can trigger an obligation for the employer to self-assess, self-report by filing a Form IRS Form 8928, and pay excise taxes of up to $100 per day, as well as expose the plan and its fiduciaries to ERISA lawsuits from covered persons, the Department of Labor or both, insurers and administrators also should review their group health plan provisions and their administration in… [read post]
30 Aug 2023, 7:35 am
The TMA III decision does not directly impact state surprise billing dispute resolution processes. [read post]
22 Jul 2008, 10:54 am
This result does not rely on the information forcing effect of basing damages on ex ante expectations - a la Hadley v. [read post]
