Filter This View

  • June 24, 2008 |

    Businessowners Liability Coverage - Archive

    Archived article. BOP insureds have basically the same coverage for premises and operations, products and completed operations, advertising and personal injury and medical payments as a CGL insured. However there are some differences, as described here.

    1 minute read

  • June 24, 2008 |

    Glossary of Insurance Terms and Concepts

    This glossary of insurance terms and concepts provides dictionary-like definitions of concepts used in the trade.

    1 minute read

  • June 24, 2008 |

    Businessowners Program - Archive

    ISO's businessowners program offers property and liability coverage for certain insureds, directed towards "main street" commercial insureds. Here is a discussion of the eligibility requirements, the conditions and common endorsements.

    1 minute read

  • June 24, 2008 |

    Farm Liability Coverage Form - Archive

    Discusses the ISO farm liability coverage form FL 00 20, which provides liability for both personal and commercial farming exposures.

    1 minute read

  • June 24, 2008 |

    Business, Interrupted

    In this August 2007 column for Claims magazine, FC&S Editorial Director Diana Reitz discusses the triple trigger required for business interruption claims to be covered.

    1 minute read

  • October 31, 2007 |

    Mergers & Acquisitions

    Despite bureaucratic and practical challenges, India's growth potential attracts a swarm of M&As.

    1 minute read

  • Lane Supply Inc. v. W. H. Ferguson & Sons Inc.

    Publication Date: 2007-07-27
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Bernes, Debra
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Eugene J. Heady Smith, Currie & Hancock, Atlanta, for appellant.
    for defendant: Donald L. Swift III, Thomas T. Tate Andersen, Tate, Mahaffey & McGarity PC, Steven M. Mills and Timothy S. Walls Mills & Moss LLC, Lawrenceville, for appellees.
    Case Number: A07A0701

    The plaintiff's alleged agreement to forebear enforcement of its materialman's lien rights merely gave the plaintiff an equitable lien for the improvements against the property owners, not the defen

  • Bennett v. State

    Publication Date: 2007-06-29
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Ruffin, John H.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Nathanael A. Horsley, Gainesville, for appellant.
    for defendant: Lee Darragh, District Attorney, Gainesville, and Lindsay H. Burton, Assistant District Attorney, Dawsonville, for appellee.
    Case Number: A07A0771

    The officer unreasonably detained the defendant to wait for another officer to bring a written warning book, since the officer was authorized to give the defendant a verbal warning for a purported

  • Lee v. State

    Publication Date: 2006-09-22
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Smith, George T.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Rodney A. Williams Franklin & Hubbard, Atlanta, for appellant.
    for defendant: Gwendolyn K. Fleming, District Attorney, and Daniel J. Quinn, Assistant District Attorney, Decatur, for appellee.
    Case Number: A06A1624

    Evidence of a third virtually identical robbery was admissible as part of the res gestae and to show the defendant's mind, knowledge and intent in allowing the use of her car in the first two robb

  • Kace Invs. LP v. Hull

    Publication Date: 2006-03-24
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Doyle, John J.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: William A. Trotter III, Warren D. Evans William A. Trotter III PC, William J. Williams Johnston, Wilkin & Williams, Augusta, John K. Larkins Jr. and Thomas D. Bever Chilivis, Cochran, Larkins & Bever, Atlanta, for appellant.
    for defendant: John B. Long and A. Montague Miller Tucker, Everitt, Long, Brewton & Lanier PA, Augusta, for appellees. Other party representation: Robert C. Hagler, James W. Purcell Fulcher, Hagler, Reed, Hanks & Harper, and William M. Fleming, Augusta.
    Case Number: A05A2014

    The defendants were entitled to amend their counterclaim, since claims remained pending after the remittitur was returned to the trial court following an appeal on cross motions for summary judgment