Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Documentation Requirements: No Right for Excess Carriers to Second-Guess Primary Carriers' Settlement Payments
Since 2001, numerous insurance companies have sought to impose on asbestos liability claims so-called “Documentation Requirements” (“DRs”), seeking to limit coverage provided by its policies to those claims that meet certain criteria. Those insurance companies assert that the DRs are necessary to counter the growing number of unsubstantiated asbestos-related bodily injury claims brought against policyholders. Generally, the DRs require a policyholder to provide medical documentation and data to show each asbestos injury for each claimant, as well as provide product identification and exposure history. See Scott Moser, Mealey's Seminar, 16 Mealey's Litig. Rep. 12 (Dec. 11, 2001) (an attorney for Equitas speaking about the documentation requirements). The policyholders, on the other hand, see the DRs as unreasonable conditions to coverage that are not found anywhere in the policy language. They argue that in many cases it may be reasonable for them or for their primary carriers to settle or to have settled claims for which there is not yet fully developed information, to avoid, inter alia, increased defense costs and the possibility of a much higher judgment if the information developed is unfavorable.
Application of the DRs to claims that fall within the layer of the insurance company that is putting them forth is questionable, particularly where the insurance company is denying coverage on other grounds. Numerous courts have held that a policyholder in such a situation who settles in the face of a reasonable anticipation that the underlying claimant may be successful is not required to prove the underlying liability case against itself in order to receive coverage. See e.g., Uniroyal, Inc. v. Home Ins. Co., 707 F. Supp. 1368, 1378-79 (E.D.N.Y. 1988); U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 643 N.E.2d 1226, 1244 (Ill. App. 1995); Luria Bros. v. Alliance Assurance Co., 780 F.2d 1082, 1091 (2d Cir. 1986).
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Judge Rules Shaquille O'Neal Will Face Securities Lawsuit for Promotion, Sale of NFTs
A federal district court in Miami, FL, has ruled that former National Basketball Association star Shaquille O'Neal will have to face a lawsuit over his promotion of unregistered securities in the form of cryptocurrency tokens and that he was a "seller" of these unregistered securities.
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Blockchain Domains: New Developments for Brand Owners
Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.
Supreme Court Rules Rejection of Trademark License Does Not Rescind Rights of Licensee
Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC The question is whether a debtor's rejection of its agreement granting a license "terminates rights of the licensee that would survive the licensor's breach under applicable nonbankruptcy law."