Search Results

The Arizona Supreme Court held that state law mandates that a single auto insurance policy that insures multiple vehicles provides different uninsured motorist coverages for each vehicle.

The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded on the duty to indemnify because the ruling of the district court was premature.

The coverage provisions in the policy were not at issue. The case turned solely on the application of the 'hostile' or 'warlike' exclusion.

The Texas Supreme Court considered a case and focused on two questions: Who is an insured under the umbrella policy and for what coverage?

Duty to read, dual agency and interpretation of case law converge in an auto tort where a tractor was rear ended by an uninsured car.

First Circuit presses Harvard on missed notification deadline for insurance coverage in case challenging school's admissions policy.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard arguments over whether state law prohibits UM/UIM policies from excluding coverage for vehicles a policyholder regularly uses but does not own or insure.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated and remanded a lower court's ruling, determining a property owner had properly demanded an appraisal within the time limit provided in his policy with Allstate.