<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>insurance RSS - Wiley Rein</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/rss//practices/insurance/rss.xml</link><description></description><language>en-us</language><pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:31:22 GMT</pubDate><lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:31:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs><generator>Wiley Rein RSS Tool</generator><ttl>60</ttl><copyright>Copyright 2010 Wiley Rein LLP</copyright><item><title>Events/Speeches: Conduct-Based Exclusions, Rescission and Severability</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/events.cfm?id=2078</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/events.cfm?id=2078</guid></item><item><title>Events/Speeches: The Regulatory Horizon: Bracing for Changes in the Global Reinsurance Market</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/events.cfm?id=2053</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/events.cfm?id=2053</guid></item><item><title>Events/Speeches: Anonymous Patient-Level Data: The Newest Trend in Healthcare Privacy</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/events.cfm?id=2043</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 21 Apr 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/events.cfm?id=2043</guid></item><item><title>Events/Speeches: What Does 2010 Hold for Fiduciaries and their Insurers?</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/events.cfm?id=2051</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/events.cfm?id=2051</guid></item><item><title>Eighth Circuit Holds That Knowingly Wrongful Acts Exclusion Is Ambiguous</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5939</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5939</guid></item><item><title>Eighth Circuit Holds That Knowingly Wrongful Acts Exclusion Is Ambiguous</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5939</link><description><![CDATA[The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, applying Missouri law, has held that an insurance policy&#8217;s knowingly wrongful acts exclusion is ambiguous and does not bar coverage for liabilities resulting from an insured psychologist&#8217;s negligent failure to warn the victim that her father, who was the insured&#8217;s client, posed a future risk of sexual abuse to the victim.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5939</guid></item><item><title>Directors' Failure to Detect and Prevent Ponzi Scheme Not Covered "Professional Services"</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5922</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5922</guid></item><item><title>Directors' Failure to Detect and Prevent Ponzi Scheme Not Covered "Professional Services"</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5922</link><description><![CDATA[A Florida appeals court has ruled that a lawsuit alleging that certain directors violated fiduciary duties by failing to detect and prevent the company&#8217;s president from operating a Ponzi scheme does not allege covered &#8220;professional services.&#8221;]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5922</guid></item><item><title>Insurer Entitled to Rescind Employment Practices Liability Policy Based on Material Omissions</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5920</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5920</guid></item><item><title>Insurer Entitled to Rescind Employment Practices Liability Policy Based on Material Omissions</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5920</link><description><![CDATA[Applying California law, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, has held that an insurer was entitled to rescind an employment practices liability policy and to recover the payments made under that policy based on the insured&#8217;s failure to disclose on the application for coverage that an employee had resigned after alleging sexual harassment.&#160;]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5920</guid></item><item><title>No Coverage for Claim Made Outside Policy Period Shortened by Cancellation</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5921</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5921</guid></item><item><title>No Coverage for Claim Made Outside Policy Period Shortened by Cancellation</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5921</link><description><![CDATA[A federal court in Puerto Rico has held that an insurer had no obligation to provide coverage for a lawsuit that was filed after the date on which its policy had been cancelled.&#160; ]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5921</guid></item><item><title>Section 111 Bulletin: A Closer Look at Medicare's Significant Revisions to Mandatory Insurer Reporting Guidance for Property and Casualty Insurers</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5917</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5917</guid></item><item><title>Section 111 Bulletin: A Closer Look at Medicare's Significant Revisions to Mandatory Insurer Reporting Guidance for Property and Casualty Insurers</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5917</link><description><![CDATA[On February 26, 2010, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released Version 3.0 of the MMSEA Section 111 User Guide for Non-Group Health Plans (NGHPs).]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5917</guid></item><item><title>Derivative Carve-Back to I v. I Exclusion Inapplicable Where Action Brought by Former Officers; Prejudice Unnecessary for Late Notice Denial under Expired Claims-Made Policy</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5915</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5915</guid></item><item><title>Derivative Carve-Back to I v. I Exclusion Inapplicable Where Action Brought by Former Officers; Prejudice Unnecessary for Late Notice Denial under Expired Claims-Made Policy</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5915</link><description><![CDATA[The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, applying Texas law, has held that an insured-versus-insured exclusion in a professional liability policy barred coverage for a derivative action where the two lead plaintiffs were the company&#8217;s former CEO and president of an acquired company.&#160;]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5915</guid></item><item><title>Events/Speeches: The New HITECH Environment: What Should Be at the Top of Your Agenda?</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/events.cfm?id=2079</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/events.cfm?id=2079</guid></item><item><title>Obligation to Seek Consent to Settlement Determined by Whether Insurer "Denied" or "Disclaimed" Coverage</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5913</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5913</guid></item><item><title>Obligation to Seek Consent to Settlement Determined by Whether Insurer "Denied" or "Disclaimed" Coverage</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5913</link><description><![CDATA[Applying New York law, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has held that whether an insured is excused from its contractual obligation to obtain consent to a settlement depends on whether the insurer has &#8220;denied&#8221; or &#8220;disclaimed&#8221; coverage and, where there was an open question of fact on this issue, dismissal of the insured&#8217;s claims for breach of contract was not appropriate. ]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5913</guid></item><item><title>Insurer Enjoined from Ceasing Advancement of Defense Expenses on Ground that Money Laundering Exclusion Barred Coverage</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5912</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5912</guid></item><item><title>Insurer Enjoined from Ceasing Advancement of Defense Expenses on Ground that Money Laundering Exclusion Barred Coverage</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5912</link><description><![CDATA[The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, applying Texas law, has granted a request for a preliminary injunction prohibiting a D&O insurer from ceasing the advancement of defense expenses.&#160;]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5912</guid></item><item><title>Failure to Defend or File Declaratory Judgment Action Estops Insurer from Denying Coverage; Related Claims Not a Single Claim Unless Policy So Provides</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5907</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5907</guid></item><item><title>Failure to Defend or File Declaratory Judgment Action Estops Insurer from Denying Coverage; Related Claims Not a Single Claim Unless Policy So Provides</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5907</link><description><![CDATA[An Illinois appellate court recently found that an insurer had a duty to defend an insured executive of a company and was estopped from denying coverage to the company even though the company failed to provide timely notice of the claims against it.&#160;]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5907</guid></item><item><title>Indemnification Not Available for Allegations of Misrepresentations as to Physician's Credentials But Insurer May Be Estopped from Denying a Defense</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5908</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5908</guid></item><item><title>Indemnification Not Available for Allegations of Misrepresentations as to Physician's Credentials But Insurer May Be Estopped from Denying a Defense</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5908</link><description><![CDATA[A state trial court in Connecticut has held that there is no indemnification coverage available under a medical professional liability policy for a suit arising out of allegations that the named insured hired a physician who he knew was not licensed to practice medicine.&#160;]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5908</guid></item><item><title>NE High Court Weights in on Allocation and Other Coverage Issues</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5911</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5911</guid></item><item><title>Section 111 Bulletin: CMS Significantly Revises Mandatory Insurer Reporting Guidance for NGHP Responsible Reporting Entities</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5906</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5906</guid></item><item><title>Section 111 Bulletin: CMS Significantly Revises Mandatory Insurer Reporting Guidance for NGHP Responsible Reporting Entities</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5906</link><description><![CDATA[In a Section 111 "town hall" teleconference for Non-Group Health Plans (NGHPs) held on February 25, 2010, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced major revisions to previously issued guidance for Responsible Reporting Entities (RREs), no doubt welcomed by many self-insured entities but which will impose greater burdens on insurers due to issues of substantial impracticality.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5906</guid></item><item><title>The "Complaint Rule" Is Not a Shield; Insurers Must Consider Allegations of Parallel Complaints against Insured in Determining Duty to Defend</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5910</link><description><![CDATA[The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, applying Colorado law, has held that, in determining its duty to defend, an insurer must consider facts alleged in parallel complaints of which it is aware rather than comparing the facts in a single complaint to the terms of the policy to determine if there is potential for coverage. ]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5910</guid></item><item><title>The "Complaint Rule" is Not a Shield; Insurers Must Consider Allegations of Parallel Complaints against Insured in Determining Duty to Defend</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5910</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5910</guid></item><item><title>Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Affirms Relief from Automatic Stay for Payment of Director's Defense Costs</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5903</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5903</guid></item><item><title>Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Affirms Relief from Automatic Stay for Payment of Director's Defense Costs</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5903</link><description><![CDATA[The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the bankruptcy court&#8217;s grant of a motion by a debtor&#8217;s sole director to modify the automatic stay to allow payment of defense costs under the A-side coverage of the debtor&#8217;s directors and officers liability insurance policy.&#160;]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5903</guid></item><item><title>Duty to Defend Triggered Where At Least Some Aspect of the Alleged Negligence Possibly Occurred after the Retroactive Date</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5904</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5904</guid></item><item><title>Duty to Defend Triggered Where At Least Some Aspect of the Alleged Negligence Possibly Occurred after the Retroactive Date</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5904</link><description><![CDATA[Applying South Carolina law, the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina has held that an insurer&#8217;s obligation to defend was triggered despite the fact that the claim involved allegations of misconduct that pre-dated the policy&#8217;s retroactive date.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5904</guid></item><item><title>Exclusion for Claims Arising from Facts Required to be Disclosed on Application Bars Coverage For Claims Arising from Nondisclosed Settlement</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5901</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5901</guid></item><item><title>Exclusion for Claims Arising from Facts Required to be Disclosed on Application Bars Coverage For Claims Arising from Nondisclosed Settlement</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5901</link><description><![CDATA[Applying New York law, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York has held that an exclusion for claims arising out of facts and circumstances not disclosed in response to a policy application question barred coverage regardless of whether the information was shown to be material to the insurer. ]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5901</guid></item><item><title>Missouri Appellate Court Holds "Wrongful Termination" Exception to Insured v. Insured Exclusion Is Ambiguous</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5905</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5905</guid></item><item><title>Missouri Appellate Court Holds "Wrongful Termination" Exception to Insured v. Insured Exclusion Is Ambiguous</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5905</link><description><![CDATA[A Missouri intermediate appellate court, applying Missouri law, has held that the term &#8220;wrongful termination&#8221; contained in a carve-back from an insured v. insured exclusion for claims brought by Insured Persons for wrongful termination was ambiguous and accordingly reversed a trial court&#8217;s order granting summary judgment in favor of the insurer.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=5905</guid></item></channel></rss>