Search for: "In re Carrier" Results 61 - 80 of 5,170
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Apr 2017, 2:40 pm
  This non-negotiable document offers very little consumer protection, because the carrier wrote it with carrier protection in mind and with limited, “job killing” regulatory oversight. [read post]
10 Apr 2017, 2:40 pm
  This non-negotiable document offers very little consumer protection, because the carrier wrote it with carrier protection in mind and with limited, “job killing” regulatory oversight. [read post]
22 Jul 2019, 6:16 am
I went and looked and, sure enough, I had mistyped it (I blame fat fingers); so re-sent it, and we're all good. [read post]
6 Jun 2012, 3:01 pm
Aetna claims that, because of its pricing strategies, they're in pretty good shape: "The reports we filed with [HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious] demonstrate our ability to price appropriately ... [read post]
16 Oct 2013, 10:48 am by Biersdorf & Associates
  The case in question, In re Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd. raised one question: whether TransCanada, the company seeking to install the pipeline, possessed eminent domain power – the power to take private property for public use. [read post]
1 Apr 2017, 12:14 pm
  Of course, the FCC can apply telecommunications carrier safeguards, e.g., Section 222 of the Communications Act, but only if it the Commission does not re-reclassify broadband as an information service. [read post]
1 Apr 2017, 12:14 pm
  Of course, the FCC can apply telecommunications carrier safeguards, e.g., Section 222 of the Communications Act, but only if it the Commission does not re-reclassify broadband as an information service. [read post]
16 Jul 2008, 1:10 pm
All we're told is: "her benefits ran out. [read post]
6 Dec 2019, 9:03 pm by James Hoffmann
However, this program is state-run, which means federal employees such as mail carriers are not covered by it. [read post]
11 Aug 2016, 6:21 am by Karsner & Meehan, P.C.
The Board found that the agreement reached between the now-bankrupt employer and the re-insurer was valid and that the re-insurer was responsible for both the § 34A and the COLA benefits. [read post]
23 Jan 2008, 4:41 pm
When a business ships its goods with a common carrier, it remains liable to pay the carrier even if it paid the arranger/broker for the shipment. [read post]
26 Sep 2013, 11:37 am by Gene Killian
So, if you’re a policyholder and have a claim against a carrier that goes belly-up, you can submit the claim to PLIGA, which then stands in the shoes of the insolvent carrier up to a limit of $300,000. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 8:15 am by Nihar Shah
  In re-launching the inquiry into carriers’ data privacy and security practices, the FCC argues that not informing customers about the software or its data practices may have violated the carriers’ responsibility pursuant to Section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934 to protect customer data “that is made available to a carrier solely by virtue of the carrier-customer relationship. [read post]
30 Dec 2011, 10:27 am by Andrew Dat
  So if you’re still not getting a satisfactory response from your mail carrier’s reps, then go over their heads and contact their superiors. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 3:42 am by Shaun Marker
Insurance carriers treat the re-opened claim as a “supplemental claim” because a certain amount of time has passed since its claim determination. [read post]
22 May 2012, 11:31 am
His carrier, Medical Mutual of Ohio (MMO), even has a claims form for just this circumstance. [read post]