Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Intel Files $50M Suit Against Insurance Company

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 9 comments

Intel has filed a $50 million lawsuit against American Guarantee and Liability Insurance, alleging breach of contract. In a suit filed last week, Intel claims the insurance company’s failure to pay for legal defence in antitrust suits filed by AMD is a breach of contract.

According to the suit, Intel purchased three separate insurance policies to cover lawsuit costs between April 2001 and April 2002: a $16 million policy from Old Republic Insurance Company, a $50 million policy from AGLI to cover total defense or indemnity coverage, and a third $50 million policy from XL Insurance America. According to PCW, Intel exhausted the ORIC and XL Insurance policies but AGLI failed to cover further legal costs.

While Intel is adamant the company never coughed up the cash, AGLI maintains (in a countersuit filed in Delaware) that the company has yet to receive all of the appropriate documentation needed to assess Intel’s claim.

PCWorld reports that Intel is seeking $50 million and additional damages from the AGLI and has asked the court to rule that AGLI has a duty to cover litigation costs.

We’ll keep an eye on this and let you know how it pans out. FYI, the Intel/AMD trial is scheduled for February 2010. Check out PCWorld for the full story on Intel’s claim against AGLI.

Display 9 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    macer1 , February 2, 2009 4:51 PM
    well this could help one of intels next quarters :)  off to buy stock
  • -6 Hide
    hellwig , February 2, 2009 5:01 PM
    This sounds obsurd. Basically, Intel knew it was doing something shady, and purchased insurance to cover any legal costs it incurred durcing that specific time?

    As for the insurance company, covering Intel in the case of legal dispute is like offering life insurance that pays out on suicide, think it through next time.
  • 4 Hide
    roofus , February 2, 2009 6:11 PM
    hellwigThis sounds obsurd. Basically, Intel knew it was doing something shady, and purchased insurance to cover any legal costs it incurred durcing that specific time?As for the insurance company, covering Intel in the case of legal dispute is like offering life insurance that pays out on suicide, think it through next time.


    Insurance for litigation does not imply guilt. It is like insurance for anything else. Its "just in case" something goes wrong or a detail is overlooked. Would you go into business and not cover all your bases? It has nothing to do with intent. If there was any legality issues with their actions, the insurance company certainly would have declined to insure their dealings unless they are shady.
  • 1 Hide
    average joe , February 2, 2009 8:08 PM
    All businesses run liability insurance. It's a necessary evil. The cost of a law suit could easily sink your company. It doesn't matter if your Intel or just a local diner. If someone slips on the sidewalk in front of your front door you could be out of business next month. What makes me mad is, given how much money insurance companies charge, they should be required to pay when you file a claim. It's ridiculous that Intel has to sue their anti lawsuit insurer to get them to pay for a lawsuit. Imagine what us little guys have to deal with. I have never managed to get my insurance to pay for anything. I have only filed two claims in my life.. both were rejected.
  • 1 Hide
    TyRaX , February 3, 2009 1:23 AM
    On the subject of slipping on the sidewalk... A court in Ohio recently ruled that a shoveled sidewalk that ices over is grounds for establishing fault on the part of the homeowner in the event of a fall. However, an unshoveled sidewalk fall is considered to be an act of nature and does not establish fault.
  • 0 Hide
    that_aznpride101 , February 3, 2009 4:41 AM
    I'm pretty amazed Intel already used up their insurance for lawsuits....
  • 0 Hide
    Christopher1 , February 3, 2009 5:38 AM
    TyRaXOn the subject of slipping on the sidewalk... A court in Ohio recently ruled that a shoveled sidewalk that ices over is grounds for establishing fault on the part of the homeowner in the event of a fall. However, an unshoveled sidewalk fall is considered to be an act of nature and does not establish fault.


    Okay, that has to be the stupidest thing in recent memory. If you shovel your sidewalk and someone falls because it ices over, you are at fault?
    I don't think so. It's an 'act of nature' EITHER WAY! Someone needs to SHOOT the lawyers who put that argument forward, and I work for a lawyer, so I know when they are being stupid.
  • 1 Hide
    Pei-chen , February 3, 2009 12:30 PM
    Christopher1Okay, that has to be the stupidest thing in recent memory. If you shovel your sidewalk and someone falls because it ices over, you are at fault?I don't think so. It's an 'act of nature' EITHER WAY! Someone needs to SHOOT the lawyers who put that argument forward, and I work for a lawyer, so I know when they are being stupid.

    You live in Scotland so maybe this doesn't apply to you but here in the US, you can suit anyone related to your injury.
  • 0 Hide
    redraider89 , February 4, 2009 3:59 PM
    Looky, looky, the trade criminal Intel expects another company to act with integrity and in good faith.