Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In its April 2005 issue, ICLB published an article discussing the varying approaches courts have taken when addressing whether an insurer may conditionally defend its insured and later obtain reimbursement of defense costs if it is determined that a claim is outside the scope of coverage. See Pastor, Sherilyn: Insurers' Rights to Recoup Defense Costs, Insurance Coverage Law Bulletin, Vol. 4, No. 3 at p. 1 (Apr. 2005). As the issue was going to press, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion rejecting the purported right of recoupment. See General Agents Ins. Co. of Am., Inc. v. Midwest Sporting Goods Co., No. 98814, 2005 WL 674685 (Ill. March 24, 2005). Noting that its position was the “minority” view, the court in General Agents declined to recognize the so-called “right of recoupment” both as a matter of contract law and a matter of policy. (For an in-depth review of the General Agents decision, see Case Notes at p. 7.) The court was right on both counts.
As a matter of contract law, there is typically no language in the insurance policies giving an insurer a right to obtain reimbursement of costs incurred in defending claims that may or may not be covered. The problem with allowing an insurer to use a reservation of rights letter to assert potential recoupment of defense costs is that the duty to defend, unlike the duty to indemnify, is determined at the outset of the litigation. A “reservation of rights” is a document sent by the insurer to the insured stating that a defense of a lawsuit will be provided, but that the insurer has questions concerning coverage and will withdraw from the defense in the event facts come to light showing that the claims at issue are not within the policy's scope. See, e.g., First Ins. Co. of Hawaii, Inc. v. State, by Minami, 665 P.2d 648, 649 (Haw. 1983) (“A reservation of rights agreement is notice by the insurer to the insured that the insurer will defend the insured but that the insurer is not waiving any defenses it may have under the policy.”). Thus, the reservation of rights letter deals with defenses to coverage ' in other words, to the ultimate duty to indemnify. If a claim clearly is outside the scope of coverage, the insurer has no need to reserve its rights in the first place. Conversely, if the insurer believes coverage is questionable enough that it feels the need to defend subject to a reservation of a right to assert recoupment, the claim must be at least “potentially” within coverage ' and, therefore, the duty to defend is triggered.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
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 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.
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.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.