Norton on Insurance Coverage in Pennsylvania, 2nd Edition (PBI Press)
4710 U.S. Steel Tower
600 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2702
Phone: 412-288-4000
Fax: 412-288-2405
Email
Latest Business and Legal News
These news items and case summaries are a service provided by FindLaw. Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. does not endorse any service or product advertised or discussed in any of these items.
Business
[03/12] US retail sales give world stocks another lift
Intellectual Property
[03/10] Google to digitize old books from Rome, Florence
Insurance
[03/12] Democrats pare differences over health overhaul
Environment
[03/12] Chinese zoo blamed for death of 11 Siberian tigers
Case Summaries
Intellectual Property
[03/11] Delaware Valley Floral Group, Inc. v. Shaw Rose Nets, LLC
In plaintiffs' suit seeking declaratory relief against the inventor and owner of a patent relating to a process that produces larger rose heads by placing elastic, porous nets over the rose heads during the growing process, district court's grant of summary judgment pursuant to the on-sale bar under section 102(b) is affirmed where: 1) defendant failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact surrounding the dates of conception or commercial sales; 2) defendant failed to dispute that the invention was ready for patenting; and 3) defendant failed to show that the district court erred in disregarding the evidence presented in its motion for reconsideration.
Insurance Law
[03/12] Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of America v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., Inc.
In plaintiff-insurers' action seeking reimbursement for their settlement contribution against its insured arising from an underlying lawsuit for antitrust violation and tortious interference with contract and with other business relations, district court's judgment is affirmed in its entirety where: 1) Kentucky will allow reimbursement for an insurer after a unilateral reservation of rights by the insurer over the objection of the insured in at least the narrow circumstances posed in this case and in cases such as Blue Ridge; 2) the district court did not err in finding that disparagement was not part of the underlying litigation at the time of the settlement, and thus, plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of the settlement funds paid on behalf of the defendant; 3) the district court was correct in determining that plaintiff's duty to defend was triggered on November 8, 1999, the date the First Amended Complaint was docketed; and 4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the damages and pre-judgment interest awarded.
Environmental Law
[03/10] Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist. v. American Int'l Specilaty Lines Ins. Co.
In a sewerage district's suit for damages against an environmental liability insurer for denying coverage for costs incurred by the district in removing significant pollution on land it recently purchased, district court's judgment is reversed and remanded as the district court's finding that there was clear and convincing proof that a prior agreement existed between the insurance company and the sewerage district that the parcel would be covered property was clearly erroneous. Therefore, defendant is entitled to judgment on the sewerage district's reformation claim and, as a consequence, judgment in favor of defendant on its indemnity claim is vacated.
Commercial Law
[03/11] Coyote Publishing, Inc. v. Miller
In a facial First Amendment challenge to restrictions on advertising by legal brothels, summary judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where the advertising restrictions targeted pure commercial speech, and there were strong reasons why the sale of sexual services, in particular, ought to be treated differently than other advertising bans on "vice" activities.
Print This PageHome | Firm Overview | Practice Areas | Attorney Biographies | Resource Library | FindLaw Newsletter | Latest News and Case Summaries | Web Links | Firm Directory | Contact Us
© 2010 Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. All rights reserved.
