Skip to main content

Lion Oil Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance

W.D. Ark.September 10, 2015No. Civil No. 13-CV-1071
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Hickey
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance defendants, finding that Lion Oil's contingent business interruption and extra expense claims were not covered under the all-risk insurance policies because the pipeline damage did not constitute damage to a 'direct supplier's' property as required by the contingent time element provision.

What This Ruling Means

**Lion Oil Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance - Employment Law Case Summary** This case involved a dispute between Lion Oil Company and National Union Fire Insurance, though the specific details of what triggered the employment law disagreement are not available in the provided case information. Unfortunately, the court's decision and reasoning cannot be summarized because insufficient case details were provided. The outcome of this 2015 case from Arkansas remains unclear, and no damage awards were reported in the available records. **What This Means for Workers:** Without knowing the specific issues or outcome of this case, it's difficult to draw concrete lessons for workers. However, this case serves as a reminder that employment disputes can involve multiple parties beyond just workers and their direct employers - sometimes including insurance companies or other business entities. When employment law cases involve insurance companies, they often relate to coverage disputes over workplace injuries, discrimination claims, or other employment-related liabilities. Workers should be aware that their employers may have insurance policies that could affect how workplace disputes are resolved, though the specific implications would depend on the particular circumstances of each case.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.