Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Treasury Extends the 'Make Available' Provisions of the TRIA
The Treasury Department announced on June 18 that it will extend the “make available” provisions of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) through 2005, the third year of the federal Terrorism Risk Insurance Program.
The “make available” provisions require that, from the date of enactment (Nov. 26, 2002) through the last day of the second year of the program (Dec. 31, 2004), each insurer must make available, in all of its commercial property and casualty insurance policies, coverage for losses due to covered acts of terrorism that does not differ materially from the terms, amounts and other coverage limitations applicable to losses arising from events other than acts of terrorism. This decision is triggered by the TRIA, which requires that the Secretary of the Treasury determine whether the “make available” provisions should be extended through the third and final year of the program by Sept. 1, 2004. Additionally, the TRIA mandates that the Treasury complete a study of the effectiveness and success of the overall Act by June 2005. This comprehensive study is independent from the “make available” determination.
In making the determination to extend the “make available” provisions, the Treasury Department considered the perspective of both users and providers of terrorism risk insurance. The Treasury had published a request for comment in the Federal Register on May 5, 2004, on the statutory factors (eg, effectiveness of the TRIA, capacity, availability, and affordability) with regard to the “make available” determination. When the comment period closed on June 4, 2004, almost 200 comments were received. Based on the comments received and other information, the Treasury found a widespread belief that the “make available” provisions have contributed to the effectiveness of the TRIA by providing customers with offers of terrorism risk insurance that would otherwise have been unavailable. The Treasury also found that it is widely believed that the “make available” requirement has contributed to the affordability and availability of terrorism risk insurance under the program, and may have increased the attention devoted by insurers to questions of capacity to offer coverage. The Treasury found that while little evidence was provided in direct support of these views, there also was little or no evidence presented that the “make available” provisions had harmed affordability, availability, or capacity.
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.