Search for: "Insurance Company v. Baring" Results 81 - 100 of 179
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Sep 2015, 5:08 pm by Kevin LaCroix
  First, in a July 8, 2015 decision in Acevedo v. [read post]
10 Apr 2009, 3:14 am
Although it is relatively uncommon in public company D&O insurance policies, some private company D&O insurance policies contain an antitrust exclusion. [read post]
7 Aug 2013, 6:32 am by Joy Waltemath
Her job involved promoting the insurance programs offered by the employer and recruiting individuals to sign up. [read post]
5 Apr 2012, 8:57 pm
One interesting provision was that insurance companies could exclude coverage for punitive damages where their driver was drunk. [read post]
16 Jul 2008, 6:22 pm
Recently, an arbitrator ordered a health-insurance company to pay a Los Angeles woman more than $9 million for improperly cutting off her coverage. [read post]
25 Aug 2019, 7:30 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
Insurance Corporation, [40] The strict grammatical rule of construction whereby the restrictive clause is limited to modifying the immediate antecedent may give way when the context requires a deviation from the rule: Rex v. [read post]
27 Dec 2019, 9:52 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Natera’s false and misleading statements are material and will affect the purchasing and investment decisions of healthcare providers, patients, and insurance companies. [read post]
21 Sep 2016, 3:25 pm by Josh Blackman
The purpose of the penalty, as the government explained to the Supreme Court in NFIB v. [read post]
We now know from Roberts v Lawton of at least one company which owns around 15,000 historic rentcharges and is seeking to profit from those rentcharges. [read post]
19 Sep 2008, 6:12 pm
His plan also allows insurance companies to cherry pick their state laws, which would allow them to evade hard fought state requirements to cover preventive and prescription coverage, and provide the bare minimum coverage. [read post]
16 Oct 2013, 4:47 am by Steven Gursten
  It comes at a time when many insurance company adjusters are wrongly  and misleadingly arguing that car accident victims will not recover pain and suffering compensation for a “serious impairment of body function,” unless the injuries are permanent. [read post]