Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Consumer Vehicle Leasing Survey Details Cost of Vicarious Liability
The Association of Consumer Vehicle Lessors (ACVL) of Nashville, TN has released its “New York Vicarious Liability Survey,” which casts an ominous cloud over the future of consumer vehicle leasing in New York State. The survey, conducted in September 2003, details the magnitude and effects of vicarious liability suits against ACVL member companies in New York from Jan. 1, 2000 to June 30, 2003. The results evidence the enormity of the vicarious liability claims filed against New York consumer vehicle lessors and explain why some ACVL member lessors have suspended their leasing programs in New York altogether while others have imposed special fees for leases written in New York.
Under the doctrine of vicarious liability, leasing companies are responsible for the damages from all accidents involving their leased vehicles despite having no fault whatsoever or control over the lessee/driver. No other state subjects consumer vehicle lessors to this unlimited liability. In addition, the same vehicle, if financed as an installment sale by the same finance company and involved in the same accident, would not subject the company to any liability exposure.
The survey revealed that in 2000 there were 694 claims totaling $973,647,809 in liability. In 2001, the number of claims rose to 754 and total liability ballooned to $2,611,719,463. In 2002, claims again increased to 789, though liabilities dropped to $1,445,892,450. In the first 6 months of 2003, however, 327 claims were filed but $1,638,357,465 was paid out. Considering that over this 31/2-year period there were 2,564 claims for a total of loss of $6,669,517,187, it is not surprising that many ACVL-member companies have concluded that leasing in New York can no longer be justified.
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.