Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
NJ Takes the Lead on Another Environmental Coverage Issue: Allocation Choice of Law
In one of the nation's first and most comprehensive allocation choice-of-law decisions, a court recently rejected insurers' claims that allocation law of the forum applies to property damage arising at multiple environmental sites if the policyholder's coverage action is venued in New Jersey. The decision was rendered in four companion environmental coverage cases involving a common choice-of-law issue. See General Electric Co., as successor in interest to RCA Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, Docket No. MER-L-4931-87 c/w MER-L-6432-88 (Law Div. Mar. 25, 2004), reconsid. den., (Law Div. May 12, 2004) (hereinafter “RCA“); Home Ins. Co. v. Cornell-Dubilier Electronics, Inc., Docket No. MER- L-5192-96 c/w MER-L-2773-02 (Law Div. Mar. 25, 2004), reconsid. den., (Law Div. May 12, 2004); Sterling Winthrop, Inc. v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., Docket No. MER-L-101-94 c/w MER-L-106-94 (Law Div. Mar. 25, 2004); Rohm & Haas Co. v. Allianz Underwriters, Inc., Docket No. MER-L-4920-87 c/w MER-L-4664-95 (collectively, the “Companion Cases“). The court concluded that the law of the state in which each waste site is located presumptively applies to the allocation of damages. This decision, now the subject of pending appeals, is likely to reach New Jersey's Supreme Court because it was rendered in “high stakes” cases, and it has broad application to many other environmental coverage actions. If the Supreme Court ultimately takes up the matter ' something the court has demonstrated a willingness to do in connection with other challenging coverage issues (see, eg, Spaulding Composites Co. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 176 N.J. 25, 819 A.2d 410 (2003) (granting leave for interlocutory appeal regarding inapplicability of non-cumulation clause); Pfizer, Inc. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 154 N.J. 187, 721 A.2d 634 (1998) (granting leave for interlocutory appeal regarding choice-of-law governing interpretation of pollution exclusion); Carter-Wallace v. Admiral Ins. Co., 154 N.J. 312, 712 A.2d 1116 (1998) (granting interlocutory appeal regarding allocation) ' it will be the highest state court in the nation to resolve an allocation choice-of-law dispute in a multistate, multisite environmental coverage action.
Varying Allocation Approaches
In the environmental coverage context, allocation refers to distributing the damage resulting from a continuous discharge of pollutants among multiple triggered policy periods, and between and among insurers. See Carter-Wallace v. Admiral Ins. Co., 154 N.J. at 312, 712 A.2d at 1121. Three general approaches to allocation have developed: 1) all sums; 2) pro rata; and 3) New Jersey's pro rata by years and limits. Under an all sums approach (also known as a vertical, or joint and several allocation approach), a policyholder can elect to collapse all costs from a continuous environmental discharge into a single policy year within the discharge period. That policy year's insurers must reimburse the entire loss, subject only to their contribution rights against other triggered years' insurers. Such an approach typically is favored by policyholders because it maximizes coverage and is consistent with a liberal interpretation of the bargained-for policy language. See, e.g., Keene Corp. v. Insurance Co. of No. Am., 667 F.2d 1034 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. den., 455 U.S. 1007 (1982), reh'g den., 456 U.S. 951 (1982); Zurich Ins. Co. v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 118 Ill.2d 23, 514 N.E.2d 150 (1987); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dana Corp., 759 N.E.2d 1049 (Ind. 2001); Rubenstein v. Royal Ins. Co., 694 N.E.2d 381 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998); J.H. France Refractories Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 534 Pa. 29, 626 A.2d 502 (1993).
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.