Wiley Rein: No Estoppel Because Excess Insurer Has No Duty to Reserve Rights in the Absence of a Duty to Defend | Practical Law

Wiley Rein: No Estoppel Because Excess Insurer Has No Duty to Reserve Rights in the Absence of a Duty to Defend | Practical Law

This Law Firm Publication by Wiley Rein LLP discusses TIG Ins. Co. v. Tyco Int’l Ltd., Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-1584, (M.D. Pa. Jan. 23, 2013). In this case before the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the court held that an excess insurer need not reserve rights in the absence of a duty to defend and therefore the excess insurer was not estopped from denying coverage despite its failure to issue a coverage letter until five years after first receiving notice of the claims. The publication discusses the case's factual background and the court's ultimate legal holdings.

Wiley Rein: No Estoppel Because Excess Insurer Has No Duty to Reserve Rights in the Absence of a Duty to Defend

by Wiley Rein LLP
Published on 15 Feb 2013 • Pennsylvania
This Law Firm Publication by Wiley Rein LLP discusses TIG Ins. Co. v. Tyco Int’l Ltd., Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-1584, (M.D. Pa. Jan. 23, 2013). In this case before the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the court held that an excess insurer need not reserve rights in the absence of a duty to defend and therefore the excess insurer was not estopped from denying coverage despite its failure to issue a coverage letter until five years after first receiving notice of the claims. The publication discusses the case's factual background and the court's ultimate legal holdings.