The Fifth Circuit asked the Louisiana Supreme Court whether a policy's anti-assignment clause prohibited post-loss assignments of policy rights.  See In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 15603 (5th Cir. July 28, 2010).

   After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Louisiana distributed federal funds to homeowners under its "Road Home" program for repair

   The Delaware Court of Chancery recently issued a detailed, scholarly opinion addressing anti-assignment provisions and the proper allocation for asbestos-related claims.  See Viking Pump, Inc. v. Century Indemn. Co., 2009 Del. Ch. LEXIS 180 (Del. Ct. Ch. Oct. 14, 2009).  Significantly, in determining the anti-assignment clauses did not bar assignment of the policies, the court departed from the reasoning

   We previously reviewed Pilkington N.A. Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67291 (N.D. Ohio July 27, 2009) [here], where the court determined there was coverage for a successor corporation under the predecessor's CGL policy despite the policies' anti-assignment provision.  In the recent sequel, the court denied the insurers'

   The amount of reimbursement owed to auto glass repair companies by the insurer was the issue presented in Auto Glass Express, Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Co., 975 A.2d 1266 (Conn. Aug. 25, 2009). 

   The insureds' policies provided reimbursement of the "amount necessary to repair or replace broken glass of like kind and quality." 

   Coverage for an underlying suit involving an alleged defective product was the issue in the detailed, narrative findings of fact and conclusions of law issued by the district court in National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Puget Plastics Corp., No. B-05-050, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70723 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 12

   In Pilkington N.A. Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co., No. 3:01CV7617, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67291 July 27, 2009), the District Court determined there was coverage for a corporate successor under the predecessor's CGL policy after an asset transfer.  We previously reviewed here various cases addressing the impact of the anti-assignment provision in CGL