<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>professional_liability RSS - Wiley Rein</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/rss//practices/professional_liability/rss.xml</link><description></description><language>en-us</language><pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:35:36 GMT</pubDate><lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:35:36 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: PLUS International Conference 2010</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/events.cfm?id=2106</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2010 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/events.cfm?id=2106</guid></item><item><title>Events/Speeches: Fiduciary Liability Insurance: Assessing Current Coverage and Future Needs</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/events.cfm?id=2161</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/events.cfm?id=2161</guid></item><item><title>Installation of Software a "Wrongful Act" under Technology E&amp;O Policy</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=6297</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=6297</guid></item><item><title>Installation of Software a "Wrongful Act" under Technology E&amp;O Policy</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=6297</link><description><![CDATA[Applying Minnesota law, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has held that an insurer had a duty to defend under a "Information and Network Technology Errors and Omissions" policy because a lawsuit asserting that the insured software manufacturer installed tracking cookies and "spyware" on the underlying claimant's computer alleged a "wrongful act."]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=6297</guid></item><item><title>Insured vs. Insured Exclusion Bars Coverage for Lawsuit by Board Member</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=6296</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=6296</guid></item><item><title>Insured vs. Insured Exclusion Bars Coverage for Lawsuit by Board Member</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=6296</link><description><![CDATA[The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, applying Minnesota law, has held that the insured vs. insured exclusion in an insured corporation&#8217;s D&O policy precluded coverage for lawsuits involving one of the corporation&#8217;s board members as an adverse party.&#160;]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=6296</guid></item><item><title>Policy Application Does Not Require Disclosure of Pending Claims Unless It Asks for Such Disclosure</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=6276</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=6276</guid></item><item><title>Policy Application Does Not Require Disclosure of Pending Claims Unless It Asks for Such Disclosure</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=6276</link><description><![CDATA[The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has held that an application for a management protection insurance policy did not require an insured to disclose any past, pending or future litigation and, therefore, the insured did not make any misrepresentations in its policy application when it failed to disclose information regarding an underlying lawsuit arising out of a traffic accident.]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=6276</guid></item><item><title>Policy Proceeds Not Property of Bankruptcy Estate Because Payment of Proceeds Would Not Affect Estate Assets</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=6275</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=6275</guid></item><item><title>Policy Proceeds Not Property of Bankruptcy Estate Because Payment of Proceeds Would Not Affect Estate Assets</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=6275</link><description><![CDATA[The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has held that policy proceeds were not part of the insured entity&#8217;s bankruptcy estate because previous entity claims were dismissed with prejudice, it was highly speculative that the bankruptcy trustee would approve indemnification of directors and officers and the policy&#8217;s priority of payment provision provided that entity coverage was only available after payment of proceeds for direct coverage to insured persons.&#160;]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=6275</guid></item><item><title>No Coverage for Post-Policy Period Claims Where Notice of Circumstances During Policy Period Was Insufficient</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=6271</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=6271</guid></item><item><title>No Coverage for Post-Policy Period Claims Where Notice of Circumstances During Policy Period Was Insufficient</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=6271</link><description><![CDATA[The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, applying California law, has held that there is no coverage for post-policy period claims where an insured&#8217;s notice of circumstances during the policy period was insufficiently specific.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=6271</guid></item><item><title>Timely Notice from Underlying Claimant Sufficient Despite Provision Requiring Insured to Provide Notice of Claim</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=6270</link><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=6270</guid></item><item><title>Timely Notice from Underlying Claimant Sufficient Despite Provision Requiring Insured to Provide Notice of Claim</title><link>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=6270</link><description><![CDATA[The Court of Appeals of Indiana, applying Indiana law, has held that notice of a claim provided by an attorney&#8217;s clients to his malpractice insurer was proper as a matter of law where notice was given during the policy period and where notice from the insured himself was an impossibility.&#160; ]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid>http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&amp;id=6270</guid></item></channel></rss>