- Affirmative Recovery
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Ediscovery
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Litigation Support Services
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Disputes
-
September 22, 2020New York Law Journal Recognizes Hollis Salzman as a Trailblazer
-
September 18, 2020Teresa Fariss Mcclain Recognized as Woman worth Watching by Profiles in Diversity Journal
-
September 17, 2020Robins Kaplan LLP Files New Lawsuit Against Delbarton School and the Order of St. Benedict of New Jersey on behalf of Survivors of Child Sex Abuse
-
September 29, 2020The Profound Importance of Authentic Leadership, Especially During a Crisis
-
September 29, 2020Turnaround Management Association (TMA) IMPACT 2020 Global Conference
-
September 30, 2020From Contract to Courtroom: Lessons Learned in Contract Litigation and Trials
-
Summer 2020Following a Varied Legal Career, Judge Jonathan Kobes Begins on the Eighth Circuit
-
September 22, 2020Herbal Patent Protection
-
August 24, 2020Hot off the Presses: California Further Regulates Out-of-State Adjusters in the Wake of Record-Breaking Catastrophic Losses
Find additional firm contact information for press inquiries.
Read our attorneys' take on the latest news and trends in the legal and business industries.
Applying Proximate Cause And Ensuing Loss Principles
The Eighth Circuit clarified that Minnesota applies the majority rule — efficient and proximate cause — in interpreting property insurance policies.
November 1, 2012
Law360, New York (November 01, 2012, 3:40 PM ET) -- In Friedberg v. Chubb & Son Inc., 691 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 2012), the court rejected the homeowners’ appeal of a summary judgment in Chubb’s favor in a case where they sought insurance coverage for extensive damage to their home’s exterior framing and insulation. Water penetrating through defects in the house’s exterior cladding system and through a defective roof had caused most of the damage.
All Content © 2003-2012, Portfolio Media, Inc.
The articles on our website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or official position of Robins Kaplan LLP.
Law360
READ FULL ARTICLE Related Professionals
David E. Bland
Of Counsel
Related Publications
August 24, 2020
Hot off the Presses: California Further Regulates Out-of-State Adjusters in the Wake of Record-Breaking Catastrophic Losses
Christina Lincoln - California Lawyers Association Business Law News
Spring 2020
What if One of Us Did Start the Fire?
Michele Detherage - The Robins Kaplan Insurance Insight: Spring 2020
April 2, 2020
Spring 2020
Debate Persists: The Controversial Restatement of the Law on Liability Insurance
Melissa D'Alelio - The Robins Kaplan Insurance Insight: Spring 2020
Spring 2020
Ransomware Attack Results in Covered Physical Loss or Damage
Elizabeth Burnett - The Robins Kaplan Insurance Insight: Spring 2020
Related News
February 4, 2020
October 4, 2019
January 23, 2019
Back to Top
Any information that you send us in an e-mail message should not be confidential or otherwise privileged information. Sending us an e-mail message will not make you a client of Robins Kaplan LLP. We do not accept representation until we have had an opportunity to evaluate your matter, including but not limited to an ethical evaluation of whether we are in a conflict position to represent you. Accordingly, the information you provide to us in an e-mail should not be information for which you would have an expectation of confidentiality.
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.