Looks at the differences in claims-made vs occurrence coverages, and how the retro date affects coverage under the claims-made form.

The policyholders claimed they should have been offered another opportunity to waive stacking for UM/UIM coverage when they removed a vehicle from their auto policy.

Florida's recent "tort reform" bill has upped the ante for policyholders seeking to hold insurance companies accountable for bad faith.

A unanimous Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that removing a vehicle from an auto policy does not create another opportunity to waive stacking for UM/UIM coverage.

An insured is arrested because he lied about pre-existing damage to his vehicle when reporting a claim to try to get the damage covered.

A vehicle is sent to an insured but it never arrives; is there coverage?

The judges of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania pointed out that, while "coverage" refers to a specific risk included by an insurance policy, "reimbursement" means paying someone back for money already spent.

If an insurance company updates the statute of limitations for their policy via endorsement, must the company also update the statute of limitations in the policy itself?

The Appeals Court of Massachusetts reversed the dismissal of claims against an insurance company after it admitted it had a duty to defend its insured in an underlying matter but refused to do so, remanding its insured's allegations of breach of contract and unfair or deceptive practices.

An ambitious fraudster crashes cars and floods houses in attempts to get claim payments.