Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Insurance Law Blogs -> INSURANCE LAW NOTES
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Insurance Law
: INSURANCE LAW NOTESThe Ambiguity Ambiguity
By Richard T. Victoria
ADVERTISEMENTS
Anyone who deals with insurance coverage in PA (particularly asbestos or latent disease coverage) really should read the recently published case of Asten Johnson v. Columbia Casualty Co., Civil Action No. 03-1552 E.D. Pa., March 30, 2007), which was decided by Judge Stengel of the Eastern District of PA. The decision strikes a blow against the contra proferentem rule. Randy J. Maniloff and Jennifer Wojciechowski have an interesting view of the case, which you can read on The Legal Intelligencer's site.
Additionally, the case covers topics of agent v. broker, course of performance, reformation, asbestosis exclusions, consent to settle clauses, and even the wise old equitable doctrine of laches.
It may take some time to get through this one. The published version of the case is nearly 60 pages long, while the linked version is over 120. Enjoy!
Full post as published by INSURANCE LAW NOTES on July 18, 2007 (boomark / email).
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

Solum on The Federal Marriage Amendment and the False Promise of Originalism
Ambiguity In Contemporary Money Laundering Statutes
Infertility Patients Caught in the Legal, Moral and Scientific Embryo Debate







