You may forward this e-mail in its entirety.
Table of Contents
- MD Edgar Borrero v. United Healthcare of N.Y., Inc.
- Koszdin v. State Comp. Ins. Fund
- Clarendon Am. Ins. Co. v. N. Am. Capacity Ins. Co.
FindLaw's case summaries are copyrighted material and are not intended for republication without prior approval. You may, however, freely redistribute this e-mail in its entirety. To view the full-text of cases you must sign in
Insurance LawUnited States Eleventh Circuit, 07/07/2010
MD Edgar Borrero v. United Healthcare of N.Y., Inc.
In an action alleging that defendant health insurer breached its contracts with plaintiff physicians by not paying them the full contracted rate for services rendered to insureds, in violation of common and statutory law, dismissal of the action is reversed where plaintiffs' claims were not subject to claim preclusion because they arose from a nucleus of operative fact distinct from those resolved in prior litigation. Read more...California Court of Appeal, 07/06/2010
Koszdin v. State Comp. Ins. Fund
In six class action suits brought by two attorneys against employers and workers' compensation insurance carriers, claiming that they failed to pay interest owed on attorney's fee awards issued by the WCAB, dismissal of the complaint following the sustaining of a demurrer for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) under the relevant provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, plaintiffs have standing to seek interest on the attorney's fees awarded directly to them by the WCAB; but 2) the trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the claims for unpaid interest where the WCAB did not expressly order the payment of interest in its attorney's fee awards. Read more...California Court of Appeal, 07/07/2010
Clarendon Am. Ins. Co. v. N. Am. Capacity Ins. Co.
In plaintiff's suit for declaratory relief, equitable contribution, and partial equitable indemnity, seeking a proportionate or equitable share of sums it spent to defend an insured in a construction defect action, trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is reversed where: 1) defendant did not meet its burden of showing there was no potential for coverage under the terms of its policy, or no duty to defend the insured in the underlying action, as a matter of law; and 2) defendant failed to show that the insured had no reasonable expectation that at the time the policy was issued, a $25,000 SIR would apply only once to the underlying action as a whole, rather than to each eight homes constructed after November 30, 2002, as a matter of law, and all of the papers submitted on the motion leave this possibility open. Read more...
FindLaw includes summaries of all Supreme and Appellate Court slip opinions posted on the official Illinois Courts site. FindLaw summaries include opinions that have not yet been released for publication and may be subject to modification, correction or withdrawal. Check the Illinois Courts site to determine if a specific opinion has been released before relying on that case as precedent.
We value your comments! Please take a moment to tell us what you think by sending us an e-mail.
Click here to subscribe to a FindLaw Newsletter. To unsubscribe, click here.
For more information about advertising in FindLaw Newsletters, click here.