Search for: "Insurance Company v. Haven"
Results 1 - 20
of 331
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Apr 2018, 12:56 am
Ashiq Hamid, trainee solicitor at CMS, considers the case of Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Company Ltd: On 5 February 2018, the Supreme Court began hearing the appeal by Haven Insurance (“Haven”) contending that it did not cheat Gavin Edmondson Solicitors (“Edmondson”) out of costs owed by six clients represented by Edmondson through conditional fee arrangements (a “CFA”) in road… [read post]
18 Apr 2018, 2:20 am
Therefore Haven had notice of the lien because they knew that each of the claimants had retained Edmondson under a CFA and so the lien could be enforced against Haven by requiring it to pay the fee amounts in the CFAs direct to Edmondson, but only up to the amount of the agreed settlement payments. [read post]
18 Jul 2011, 6:00 pm
John Fund, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Mar 2016, 8:56 am
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, that has been out for a few weeks but I haven’t written on yet? [read post]
18 Nov 2022, 8:44 am
BNSF Railway Company[2] was the first fully litigated case against an employer for violating BIPA, in the wake of massive settlements involving tech companies including Facebook ($650 million)[3], Google ($100 million)[4], TikTok ($92 million)[5], and Snapchat ($35 million).[6] Meanwhile, the Illinois Supreme Court in West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. v. [read post]
7 Mar 2023, 3:00 am
SE v. [read post]
19 Oct 2018, 3:51 am
In February 2018 the Supreme Court heard the appeal by Haven Insurance (the “Appellant”) contending that it did not cheat Gavin Edmondson Solicitors (the “Respondent”) out of costs owed by six clients represented by the Respondent through conditional fee arrangements (a “CFA”) in road traffic accidents when the Appellant reached direct settlements with all six of the Respondent firm’s clients. [read post]
22 Aug 2011, 5:00 am
Co. v. [read post]
24 May 2017, 3:38 pm
Other cases, however, looked at whether the insurance company properly investigated all facts relating to liability and damages. [read post]
8 Mar 2023, 6:16 pm
—Will Rogers 1Dominish v. [read post]
20 Sep 2006, 6:13 am
As a follow up to Don Brenner's earlier post on the recent Appellate Division decision in Firemen's Insurance Company of Newark v. [read post]
14 Sep 2010, 1:05 pm
AAA Insurance Company of Michigan Why am I shaming AAA insurance? [read post]
7 Jul 2012, 11:20 am
-The insurance company or healthcare provider you owe the money to knows that if he has to go to court to collect money, he will have to pay a lawyer -The insurance company may not know how collectible you are -The insurance company or healthcare provider knows a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. [read post]
26 Apr 2020, 6:17 am
The article tells us that the legal media have been inundated with articles by lawyers who represent policyholders and insurance companies discussing business interruption claims arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. [read post]
9 Feb 2017, 6:34 pm
Insurance companies in Ontario for personal injury cases almost ALWAYS insist that cases be tried by a jury. [read post]
25 Jan 2007, 12:25 pm
More often than not, insurance companies are disclaiming liability coverage for mold-related incidents and will rebuff reimbursement efforts (unless intertwined with a covered event).A case in point is Siegel v. [read post]
10 Oct 2023, 4:30 pm
Here, for example, a foreign insurance company insured a yacht owned by a Pennsylvania company. [read post]
19 Nov 2007, 12:07 am
Here's the story's lede:When the first federal insurance trial in Louisiana against State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. wrapped up last week, the jury's message was clear: If companies want to deny payments under homeowners insurance policies because the damage was instead caused by flood, they darn well better be able to prove that flood was indeed what destroyed the home. [read post]
19 Nov 2007, 12:07 am
Here's the story's lede:When the first federal insurance trial in Louisiana against State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. wrapped up last week, the jury's message was clear: If companies want to deny payments under homeowners insurance policies because the damage was instead caused by flood, they darn well better be able to prove that flood was indeed what destroyed the home. [read post]
7 Jan 2013, 7:01 am
Stocks v. bonds. [read post]
