Announcement of change in home page display.

"Massachusetts law is clear that the unambiguous terms of an insurance policy must be strictly enforced and an insured's failure to comply with the notice provision of a claims made policy bars coverage," the judge wrote.

"The perception that Delaware law is generally more favorable to the policyholder than the insurer may be more based upon jurisdictional considerations rather than choice of law," says Monteleone.

A policy open to more than one reasonable interpretation is, by definition, ambiguous, and ambiguity is resolved in favor of coverage under well-settled insurance principles.

A policy open to more than one reasonable interpretation is, by definition, ambiguous, and ambiguity is resolved in favor of coverage under well-settled insurance principles.

"For State Farm to have a duty to defend the Avaya lawsuit against DBSI and its officer, Avaya's operative complaint must potentially state a claim for trade dress infringement. But it does not," Judge Peter Phipps of the Third Circuit wrote.

Marshall Gilinsky of Anderson Kill talks about the distinctive elements of Huntington Ingalls's claim that led the Supreme Court of Vermont to issue a favorable ruling in the company's COVID-related business interruption suit

Click here for ICLC Expert Analysis.<br>Huntington Ingalls Industries<br>v.<br>Ace American Ins. Co.<br>Supreme Court of Vermont<br>September 23, 2022, Filed<br>No.…

Huntington Ingalls, according to the Supreme Court of Vermont, suffered "direct physical damage" because employees infected with COVID had been physically present at the facilities and unintentionally spread the virus to employees who were not ill.