Showing 1 - 7 of 7
Following the publication of The Legal 500 and Chambers USA 2022, Kennedys has seen some impressive rankings in the latest guides to leading law firms and lawyers across the United States.
Following the publication of Chambers USA 2021, Kennedys has seen some impressive rankings in the latest edition of the guide to leading law firms and lawyers across the United States.
Nearly two decades ago, the Supreme Court of Ohio adopted an “all sums” approach to allocate insurance coverage for progressive injuries among multiple triggered policies. In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., the Court held that “when a continuous occurrence of environmental pollution triggers claims under multiple primary insurance policies, the insured is entitled to secure coverage from a single policy of its choice that covers ‘all sums’ incurred as damages ‘during the policy period,’ subject to that policy's limit of coverage.” 769 N.E.2d 835, 841 (Ohio 2002).
One of the key issues in environmental coverage disputes between insurers and policyholders is the question of allocation. The two predominate applications concerning this issue involve determining whether the insurers will be allocated responsibility for payment of a claim on a pro rata basis or on an “all sums” basis.
Case review 30/03/2020
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently held that an insurer has a duty to defend an underlying class action lawsuit alleging violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. (West 2014). West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc., 2020 IL App (1st) 191834 (March 20, 2020). In this case of first impression, the court in Krishna Schaumburg Tan was asked to decide whether the allegations of the underlying complaint come within the insurance policies’ definition of “personal injury” and if so, whether an exclusion for violation of statutes applies to bar coverage. Id. at *7-8.
In a recent decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a trial court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that the party had waived the right to arbitrate. In Brickstructures, Inc. v. Coaster Dynamix, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, Case No. 19-2187 (7th Cir. March 11, 2020), the Plaintiff brought suit against its former business partner alleging That Coaster Dynamix breached a joint venture agreement and its fiduciary duties and false advertising in violation of the Lantham Act. Id. at *3. Coaster Dynamix moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6). Arguing that the joint venture agreement was an unenforceable contract. The trial court, however, dismissed the complaint on jurisdictional grounds. Id.
On April 24, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its third opinion concerning arbitration during this term, holding that the doctrine of contra preferentem cannot be applied to an ambiguous arbitration agreement to impose class arbitration in a commercial contract.