INSURANCE POLICY'S 'INSURED VS. INSURED' CLAUSE DOES NOT BAR TRUSTEE ACTION Gray v. Executive Risk Indem. | Secondary Sources | Westlaw

INSURANCE POLICY'S 'INSURED VS. INSURED' CLAUSE DOES NOT BAR TRUSTEE ACTION Gray v. Executive Risk Indem. | Secondary Sources | Westlaw

View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, INSURANCE POLICY'S 'INSURED VS. INSURED' CLAUSE DOES NOT BAR TRUSTEE ACTION Gray v. Executive Risk Indem., Secondary Sources
Skip Page Header

INSURANCE POLICY'S 'INSURED VS. INSURED' CLAUSE DOES NOT BAR TRUSTEE ACTION Gray v. Executive Risk Indem.

17 No. 20 ANCODLLR 8Andrews Corporate Officers and Directors Liability Litigation Reporter (Approx. 3 pages)

INSURANCE POLICY'S 'INSURED VS. INSURED' CLAUSE DOES NOT BAR TRUSTEE ACTION Gray v. Executive Risk Indem.

17 No. 20 ANCODLLR 8Andrews Corporate Officers and Directors Liability Litigation Reporter (Approx. 3 pages)

17 No. 20 Andrews Corp. Off. & Directors Liab. Litig. Rep. 8
Andrews Corporate Officers and Directors Liability Litigation Reporter
June 3, 2002
D&O Insurance:
Copyright (c) 2002 Andrews Publications

INSURANCE POLICY'S 'INSURED VS. INSURED' CLAUSE DOES NOT BAR TRUSTEE ACTION

Gray v. Executive Risk Indem.

A federal judge in Boston has endorsed a bankruptcy judge's ruling that the ‘insured vs. insured‘ exclusions in the D&O policies of the defunct Molten Metal Technology Inc. do not bar coverage for a Chapter 11 trustee's breach-of-duty claims. The...
End of Document© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.