Search for: "Department of Insurance v. Doe" Results 641 - 660 of 2,940
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Aug 2023, 8:54 am by Kevin LaCroix
In a June 29, 2023, decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. [read post]
19 May 2008, 11:37 pm
VanDam v New Paltz Central School District, 46 A.D.3d 1194, Appellate Division, Third Department, The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a determination by one of its administrative law judges rejecting the claim of Heather D. [read post]
20 Sep 2012, 11:27 am by Scott Calvert
Similarly, the obligation that an ERISA fiduciary act in the interest of the plan beneficiary does not differ depending on whether that fiduciary is a trustee or an insurer. [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 3:25 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
These are the two lessons found in Marcum LLP v L’Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contini, L.L.P. 2023 NY Slip Op 06443 Decided on December 14, 2023 Appellate Division, First Department an ironic case in which a major legal malpractice defense firm was sued for legal malpractice and they were defended by a friendly competitor major legal malpractice defense firm. [read post]
14 Jun 2018, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Status of a spouse named as the primary beneficiary of a life insurance policy or similar instrument in the event the marriage is terminated by divorceSveen, et el v Melin, United State Supreme Court, 584 U.S. ___ (Decided June 11, 2018)Mark Sveen purchased a life insurance policy, naming his then spouse, Kaye Melin, as the primary beneficiary and designating his two children from a prior marriage, Ashley and Antone Sveen, as contingent beneficiaries. [read post]
11 May 2008, 4:10 pm
CGL - APPLICATION MISREPRESENTATION - RESCISSION - MATERIALITY - PROOF OF PAST UNDERWRITING PRACTICESKiss Construction NY, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Jan 2016, 6:30 am
The paramedics tried to persuade defendant that he needed to go to the hospital, but he did not have medical insurance and refused. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 6:36 am by Marty Lederman
  Contrary to common wisdom, federal law does not impose a legal duty on large employers to offer their employees access to a health insurance plan, or to subsidize such a plan. [read post]