Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Case Briefs
Buss Stop: Illinois Refuses Insurers' Recovery of Defense Costs
On March 24, 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and held that an insurer cannot recoup defense costs after a court finds there is no coverage for the claim. General Agents Ins. Co. of Am., Inc. v. Midwest Sporting Goods Co., __ N.E.2d __, No. 98814, 2005 WL 674685 (Ill. Mar. 24, 2005). The court acknowledged its opinion followed the “minority view,” also adopted by Wyoming, Hawaii, Texas, Pennsylvania and Missouri. California, in the seminal case of Buss v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.4th 35, 939 P.2d 766, 65 Cal. Rptr. 366 (1997), along with Florida, Colorado, Minnesota, Louisiana and Ohio, follow the “majority” position. The stated majority holds that insurers can recoup defense costs when the insurer did not have a duty to defend, the insurer timely and expressly reserved its rights to recover defense costs, and the policyholder has not objected thereto or has accepted the payment for defense costs. Id. at *11.
The case involved coverage for an underlying action wherein the city of Chicago and Cook County sued Midwest Sporting Goods Company (“Midwest”) and others for allegedly creating a public nuisance through their sale of guns to inappropriate buyers. Midwest tendered the suit to its insurer General Agents Insurance Company of America (“Gainsco”). Gainsco eventually agreed to defend the action, but reserved its rights to “recoup any defense costs paid in the event that it is determined that [Gainsco] does not owe [Midwest] a defense in this matter.” Id. at *1. Midwest never responded to this letter and thereafter accepted Gainsco's payment of defense costs. Id. at *2. Gainsco then filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that it did not owe coverage in the underlying matter. The trial court ruled in Gainsco's favor on this issue on summary judgment and found no coverage existed. The appellate court affirmed. Thereafter, the trial court granted Gainsco's motion for reimbursement of approximately $40,000 in defense costs because Gainsco reserved its rights to recoup these costs. Id.
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.