NAGEL RICE, LLP v. ALLIED WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY
Case Number:
2:16-cv-03888
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Judge:
Firms
Sectors & Industries:
-
March 31, 2017
Nagel Rice Drops Coverage Suit Against Allied World
New Jersey firm Nagel Rice LLP has agreed for now to drop its action against Allied World Insurance Co. seeking coverage for a malpractice lawsuit over the insurer's objections that the firm saw it coming, so coverage was precluded.
-
January 30, 2017
Allied Can't Dodge Nagel Rice Malpractice Coverage Suit
Allied World Insurance Co. can't escape claims from Nagel Rice LLP that an underlying malpractice action should be covered under its insurance policy, after a New Jersey federal court ruled Monday it's up for debate whether Nagel attorneys could have reasonably expected the underlying suit.
-
August 09, 2016
Nagel Rice Malpractice Row Expected, So Not Covered: Allied
Allied World Insurance on Monday continued to push for the dismissal of Nagel Rice LLP’s claim that an underlying malpractice action should be covered under its insurance policy, telling a New Jersey federal court that the law firm knew the malpractice claim was likely because the client was expressly unhappy.
-
August 01, 2016
Nagel Rice Slams Bid To Toss Malpractice Coverage Suit
Law firm Nagel Rice LLP on Monday urged a New Jersey federal court to keep alive its lawsuit seeking coverage from Allied World Insurance Co. in defending a malpractice suit, saying the insurer is trying to use a prior knowledge exclusion too aggressively to deny coverage.
-
July 06, 2016
Nagel Rice Knew Malpractice Suit Possible, Says Insurer
Allied World Insurance Company asked a New Jersey federal court to toss law firm Nagel Rice LLP's bid for coverage in defending a malpractice suit Wednesday, saying the firm's coverage ended when it breached its professional duty in such a way it knew it could be sued.
-
July 01, 2016
Nagel Rice Says Allied Must Cover It For Malpractice Suit
New Jersey firm Nagel Rice LLP on Friday slapped Allied World Insurance Co. with a federal lawsuit over its refusal to cover the costs of defending a malpractice lawsuit, saying the insurer wrongly determined the firm knew beforehand it was going to be sued and therefore coverage was precluded.