Gardnerrosenberg.com Website Review

problem. solved.   we're litigators. we position every case for the best outcome through thoughtful. strategy, skillful negotiation and experienced courtroom advocacy.. plaintiffs, defendants, individuals, corporate officers, businesses, insurers, institutions. you’re our client and we draw on our. allowing coverage where an additional insured intentionally set a fire, a mas*achusetts state court this fall ruled that an innocent co-insured can recover where fire was started by the other co-insured (see here for our earlier article on the federal case as co-insureds under the policy.  the finance caused and perished in the fire.  the insurer denied coverage under the intentional loss the court ruled that the policy’s exclusion is broader than the state’s statutorily required language for fire insurance, which refers to acts by “the insured” rather than “an” insured.  this, the court ruled, mandates a several obligation not to cause a the court noted that the ruling is in accord with the majority of states, who find coverage for an “innocent spouse.” however, the court limited the import of its decision by awarding the plaintiff only half of the loss.  the court reasoned that “having while this case is important insomuch as it provides coverage for innocent co-insureds, the prospect of recovering only half the value of a burned house will be cold comfort.  recovering only half the cost of the house will likely lead to the innocent spouse defaulting including director and officer, commercial general liability, employment practices liability, errors and omissions, life, clients representing a clas* of terminated employees.  the case involves the question of whether claims for pay upon an employee's termination without notice, required by the federal workers adjustment retraining and notification act (warn), can be the basis for a claim. necco candy shuts down without notice, gardner & rosenberg files warn claim on behalf of employees.