The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has gone from a distant deadline to an imminent reality, with the controversial "play or pay" provisions scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2014.

A commentary on a recent decision in the case of Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc., v. L. H. Bolduc Co., interpreting a subcontractor's agreement to indemnify a contractor, the subcontractor's contractual obligation to procure insurance to cover that indemnity agreement and the impact of the Minnesota anti-indemnification statute on such contract provisions.

Less than two weeks apart, two appellate courts issued opinions analyzing whether faulty work claims are covered under commercial general liability policies, each reaching a different result.

Like many companies who made products containing asbestos, Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corporation has over the past several decades defended thousands of asbestos bodily injury claims brought by construction workers who allege they were exposed and suffered bodily injury resulting from exposure to Kaiser Cement’s asbestos containing products.

Many jurisdictions have announced that they plan to more actively pursue natural resource damages from potentially responsible parties deemed liable under CERCLA or Superfund.

As reported in our November 2012 Client Alert entitled Latest Regulatory Developments Concerning Unclaimed Life Insurance Benefits, a few states have passed new laws governing claims investigation practices to address the issue of unclaimed life insurance benefits.

A New York appellate court recently upheld a supreme court ruling that an insurer had a duty to defend a manufacturer’s faulty workmanship where it resulted in third party property damage. I.J. White Corp. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 2500 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t Apr. 16, 2013).

In Farkas v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 12-1481, 2013 WL 1459248 (4th Cir. Apr. 11, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment order and held that a Directors & Officers (D&O) liability insurer had no duty to defend the chairman of the policyholder after he was convicted of criminal fraud.