Try our Advanced Search for more refined results

Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company v. 23andMe, Inc.

  1. October 29, 2018

    23andMe's Counterclaims Trimmed In Insurance Dispute

    A California federal judge has dismissed two of 23andMe's counterclaims in a dispute with its insurer over a class settlement linked to complaints that the DNA tester violated regulations by providing customers with medical information, saying it wasn't clear that the insurer misbehaved regarding the approval of a settlement.

  2. June 07, 2018

    Ironshore, 23andMe Get ADR OK In DNA Case Coverage Row

    A California federal judge on Thursday encouraged Ironshore Specialty Insurance Co. and 23andMe Inc. to wrap up evidence gathering in their four-year-old coverage dispute and take it to mediation now that the underlying putative class claims against the genetic testing company have been settled.

  3. July 25, 2016

    Ironshore Can't Escape 23andMe Test Accuracy Coverage Spat

    A California federal judge on Friday ruled that Ironshore Specialty Insurance Co. can't lean on a contractual liability exclusion to bar genetic testing company 23andMe Inc.'s request for coverage of proposed class claims that its tests are inaccurate, but found that the insurer doesn't have to cover the company's costs to respond to a probe by Washington state.

  4. May 13, 2016

    23andMe Says Insurer Must Cover Suit Over Test Accuracy

    Consumer genetic testing company 23andMe Inc. told a federal judge on Thursday that Ironshore Specialty Insurance Co. can't refuse to cover underlying class claims that its tests weren't accurate, because an exclusion for "assumption" of contractual liability refers only to new liabilities.

  5. January 25, 2016

    23andMe Says Exemption Doesn't Apply In DNA Test Actions

    Consumer genetic testing company 23andMe Inc. told a California federal judge Friday that an insurer can't use a contractual liability exemption to escape coverage for proposed class claims that its tests weren't accurate, saying that the exemption doesn't apply to its contractual obligations to customers.

  6. May 15, 2015

    23andMe Gets Some Insurer Claims Paused In DNA Test Row

    A California federal judge said Thursday that consumer genetic testing company 23andMe can delay facing an insurer's claims that it shouldn't cover damages from off-label marketing and wrongful acts, because those issues are central to the underlying suits accusing 23andMe of falsely advertising its tests.

  7. September 08, 2014

    23andMe Wants Hold On Coverage Suit Amid DNA Test Row

    23andMe Inc., the genetic testing service recently chastised by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for selling an unapproved test that could lead to dangerous, false results, urged a California federal judge on Friday to put an insurer's coverage suit on hold pending resolution of the underlying false ad class action.

  8. July 22, 2014

    Insurer Sues 23andMe To Duck Coverage Of DNA Test Suits

    An insurer for 23andMe Inc., the genetic testing service recently chastised by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for selling an unapproved test that could lead to dangerous, false results, sought to distance itself Monday from false-ad claims and a government probe targeting 23andMe.