Search for: "RESOLUTE INSURANCE COMPANY v. STATE" Results 121 - 140 of 970
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Jan 2013, 12:00 am by Kevin LaCroix
  By statute, the Federal Deposit Insurance Company can require insured financial institutions to maintain fidelity bonds to insure against such losses, and the FDIC has chosen to mandate that requirement. [read post]
9 Nov 2018, 12:04 am by Kit Chong Ng
Achmea and the CJEU’s Treatment of Intra-EU BITs The Achmea decision[6] was rendered following a reference from the German Bundesgerichtshof (federal court) to the CJEU.[7] Briefly, the case concerned the setting-aside of an ad-hoc investor-State arbitration, established under United Nations Commission for International Trade Law (‘UNCITRAL’) rules and seated in Frankfurt, between the Dutch insurance company Achmea BV and Slovakia. [read post]
12 Nov 2020, 6:48 am by CMS
In this post, Richard Bamforth, Kushal Gandhi and Jessica Foley, who all work at CMS and have a special interest in arbitration, comment on the decision handed down last month by the UK Supreme Court in the matter of Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi A.S. v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38. [read post]
21 Nov 2022, 8:43 am by Chip Merlin
The obvious question is “why don’t the insurance companies change the policy language to unequivocally prevent post loss assignment of benefits? [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 3:30 am by Shaun Marker
The most recent case was a Leap Day opinion, United Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. [read post]
2 Jun 2023, 12:02 am
(“Towers Watson”), a Delaware company headquartered in Virginia, purchased directors and officers (“D&O”) liability insurance coverage from several insurance companies, including National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. [read post]
13 Nov 2017, 9:12 am by Lorelie S. Masters and Paul T. Moura
  Insurance companies have historically favored New York law, perceiving it to be more insurer-friendly than other laws and recognizing that companies based in the United States likely would find application of the law of a jurisdiction in the United States more acceptable and familiar than the law of a country outside of the country. [read post]