Search for: "Affirmative Insurance Company"
Results 81 - 100
of 5,501
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jun 2011, 2:06 pm
State Farm Florida Insurance Company (4D09-3887), the Fourth District affirmed the trial court's holding that the insurance company was not obligated to provide representation to the insured because the "the trial court correctly determined that the accident was not covered under the homeowners’ policy, inasmuch as it did not occur on the insured premises. [read post]
13 Nov 2015, 11:14 am
Progressive Halcyon Insurance Company, the South Carolina Court of Appeals vacated the part of the trial court’s order that found that the plaintiff had no viable claim but affirmed the trial court as to its holding that she could not adequately represent the proposed class. [read post]
9 Oct 2015, 11:14 am
Progressive Halcyon Insurance Company, the South Carolina Court of Appeals vacated the part of the trial court’s order that found that the plaintiff had no viable claim but affirmed the trial court as to its holding that she could not adequately represent the proposed class. [read post]
24 Jul 2020, 8:11 am
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of allegations that a mortgage lender colluded with an insurance company and insurance agent to inflate the rate of the borrowers’ force-placed hazard insurance policies in violation of various consumer protection statutes, RICO, and the common law. [read post]
19 Jul 2013, 12:35 pm
A three-judge panel held the insurance company had the burden of proof to show the insured person elected lesser coverage. [read post]
23 Feb 2021, 6:13 am
Matthews, MD, PC, filed an appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals from the summary judgment we obtained in the US District Court for Harleysville Insurance Company. [read post]
7 Jan 2020, 7:01 am
Great American Insurance Company of New York, No. 18-1967 (11th Cir. [read post]
21 Apr 2022, 11:50 am
., the Tenth Circuit recently affirmed a lower court’s decision that an insurer did not have a duty to defend or indemnify its insured, a pipeline company, against a former director’s lawsuit. 21-5043, 2022 WL 1112530, at *1 (10th Cir. [read post]
11 Jan 2010, 7:31 pm
In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. [read post]
10 Jul 2018, 6:30 am
Everyone knows that — except for insurance companies. [read post]
11 Jun 2018, 11:52 am
Insurance companies will try many different tactics to avoid paying benefits to injured workers. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 9:09 am
McCavic affirmed a jury verdict for negligence against Amerititle, Inc., which had served as escrow agent and title insurer in the transaction. [read post]
23 Dec 2019, 9:40 am
The insurance company bears the ultimately financial obligation, so the insurance company controls most of the litigation. [read post]
26 Mar 2014, 5:00 am
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 12-3901, 2014 U.S. [read post]
26 Jan 2021, 10:38 am
On January 21, 2021, the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed a trial decision ruling that an insurance company did not have a duty to defend its policy holder against claims for fire damage. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 1:46 pm
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (No. 10-3545), the Sixth Circuit held that title insurance companies are all but immune to private antitrust claims in Ohio. [read post]
10 Sep 2008, 11:33 pm
Martinez, No. 1-06-1902 (8/5/08) ruled that an Insurance company was not required to defend or indemnify owners of dog, occupying insured premises, which bit child. [read post]
20 May 2018, 9:10 pm
Last month, a New York Supreme Court affirmed that insurance companies are subject to that state’s consumer protection law, General Business Law § 349. [read post]
16 May 2012, 1:54 am
The Maryland high court has affirmed that Maryland insurance law substantially rewrites car insurance contracts and that provisions that are not authorized by Maryland law are unenforceable. [read post]
20 Dec 2019, 4:00 am
The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s holding that the insurance companies were in the right when they denied Rodriguez’s claim for excess coverage under the umbrella policy. [read post]
