Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Self-Insurance Obligations Under NJ Law: Forecasting the Future of Benjamin Moore
The NJ Supreme Court has recently elected to hear appeals in two coverage actions involving the same basic issue ' namely, reconciling the application of the Owens-Illinois “continuous trigger theory” with the application of specific policy provisions under New Jersey law. In the first of these two cases, Spaulding Composites Company, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety, the court strongly affirmed the viability of the continuous trigger theory, invalidating a clear and unambiguous non-cumulation clause that it found conflicted with this approach. Spaulding Composites Company, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety, 176 N.J. 25, 46 (2003). In the second case, Benjamin Moore & Company v. Aetna Casualty & Surety, which is pending, the court must now determine how to apply the continuous trigger theory to self-insurance features contained in a series of unambiguous policy endorsements which do not appear to conflict with a continuous trigger. No. A-4423-01T2F, 2003 WL 1904383 (App. Div., Jan. 14, 2003), appeal granted, 176 N.J. 70 (2003). Specifically, the court must consider whether the continuous trigger theory should be applied to deductibles in the same one-occurrence-per-year manner that it is applied to losses. The trial court and Appellate Division in Benjamin Moore have both concluded that the continuous trigger theory is properly applied to the calculation of deductibles. At this point, it is uncertain how the Supreme Court will resolve this issue, but the court may well have tipped its hand with the Spaulding decision.
Spaulding
The Spaulding case involves the application of the Owens-Illinois continuous trigger theory to a potentially conflicting policy provision that purports to prevent the “cumulation” of multiple policy limits with respect to a “single occurrence.”
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.