|
|
 |
|
Viewing report
|
|
|
|
The Instant Impact of Rosciti v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. (D.R.I. Aug 30, 2010) on “Direct Action” Statutes and Plaintiffs' Ability to Bypass Bankrupt Policyholders' Self-Insured Retentions to Recover Directly from an Excess Insurer
ExecSense, Nov 2010, Minutes: 60
“The Instant Impact of Rosciti v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. (D.R.I. Aug 30, 2010) on ‘Direct Action’ Statutes and Plaintiffs’ Ability to Bypass Bankrupt Policyholders’ Self-Insured Retentions to Recover Directly from an Excess Insurer” is a time efficient way to be in-the-know on the most up to date facts and ramifications of this case and take proactive steps on behalf of current and prospective clients it could impact the most. Take the 60 minutes to view this webinar (on your computer, mobile phone, iPod, iPad, Kindle or printed out) to make sure you have answers ready to key questions you are sure to be asked on the immediate ramifications of this decision by colleagues, clients and other professionals with whom you discuss the case, as individuals seeking to recover damages from a bankrupt company will not be able to directly collect from excess insurers if the company has not exhausted its self-insured retention.
Upon ordering, ExecSense will email you a link to download the webinar files for viewing on your computer, mobile phone, iPod, iPad, Kindle or printed out. The downloaded files will include the PowerPoint presentation, audio narration and jpeg images of the slides (for watching on your mobile media device). Take advantage of your next commute, flight, business trip, lunch, or free hour in your schedule to view this webinar.
The webinar is led by an expert on the ramifications of this case and plaintiffs’ ability to bypass bankrupt policyholders’ self-insured retentions to recover directly from an excess insurer, and focuses on:
- Everything you need to know in 60 minutes about the impact of the District of Rhode Island’s decision on “direct action” statutes and the ability of plaintiffs to bypass bankrupt policyholders’ self-insured retentions and recover directly from excess insurers
- Perspective on the impact of the District of Rhode Island’s decision on individuals who are seeking to recover damages from a bankrupt company that has not exhausted its self-insured retention, whether future plaintiffs will be able to argue that the direct-action statute trumps their insurance policy, what set of facts will support a finding that a plaintiff is entitled to collect directly from excess insurers, and how plaintiffs who cannot collect directly from excess insurers but who are entitled to damages from a bankrupt company will be made whole
- The 10 questions being asked the most by insurance lawyers and their clients with respect to how this decision will impact them and what proactive steps they should be taking right now
- Case studies of what other lawyers are doing for their clients, now and in the future, based on this ruling
Praise for ExecSense Webinars:
'ExecSense Webinars are an enhanced and effective way to immediately understand new legal trends or decisions that impact your practice.' - Robert Orozco, Partner, Meyers Nave
“Was first on the scene with an in depth overview of this game changing decision.” – Howard Grubbs, Practice Group Leader, Womble Carlyle
“If it's up to the minute information that you need, go with ExecSense.” – Christopher J. Dow, Hunsucker Goodstein & Nelson
Customers who bought this item also bought
The Instant Impact of American and Foreign Ins. Co. v. Jerry's Sport Center, Inc. (Penn. Aug. 17, 2010) on Insurers' Ability to Recoup Defense Costs for Uninsured Claims
The Instant Impact of In re Text Messaging Antitrust Litigation (7th Cir. Dec. 29th, 2010) on the Burden Faced by Plaintiffs Pleading an Antitrust Conspiracy Under Twombly
The Instant Impact of Medmarc Cas. Ins. Co. v. Avent America, Inc. (7th Cir. July 15, 2010) on Insurance Lawyers and Insurers' Duty to Defend No-Injury Product Liability Lawsuits Under Standard CGL Policies
The Instant Impact of Clarendon Amer. Ins. Co. v. StarNet Ins. Co. (Cal. App. July 27, 2010) on Determining Whether Pre-Litigation ADR Is a “Suit” for Purposes of Defense Coverage Under CGL Policies
The Instant Impact of TMW Enterprises, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co. (6th Cir. Aug. 25, 2010) on the Intersection of Exclusions and “Ensuing Loss” Coverage Provisions in All-Risk Policies
The Instant Impact of Perera v. US Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (Fla. May 6, 2010) on Insurance Lawyers and Third-Party Bad-Faith Actions Against Insurers Where There Was No Exposure to an Excess Judgment
The Instant Impact of Papudesu v. Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association of Rhode Island on Insurance Lawyers & The Right to Settle Language in Professional Liability Policies
The Instant Impact of North Carolina v. Tennessee Valley Authority (4th Cir. July 26, 2010) on the Use of Public Nuisance Suits to Regulate Air Emissions
Professional Webinar Library Subscription for Lawyers: Insurance Law
How to Sell a Minority Interest in Your Company
|
|
|
|
