Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Allocation: Still An Open Question in Wisconsin
Allocation often is a key issue in insurance coverage cases where courts have found that long-term bodily injury or environmental contamination has taken place over many years. Occurrence-based policies typically provide coverage only for damages from injury taking place during the policy period. In many cases, courts have found it impossible to determine as a matter of fact precisely when injury took place or how much injury took place in any given period. They have thus presumed that injury took place over the entire period ' often a very lengthy period ' during which it may have taken place (eg, from first “exposure” until diagnosis of the injury or discovery of the contamination).
Assuming, therefore, that there have been multiple years of injury, the question arises as to how to allocate damages associated with the bodily injury or property damage. Under a pro rata allocation method, courts have allocated damages equally across all triggered years, regardless of the amount of insurance, if any, in each year. In states where “joint and several liability” has been adopted, courts have allowed the policyholder to “pick and choose” any year in its coverage program to respond to the claim, thus allowing the policyholder to potentially avoid years in which it may have no coverage, not enough coverage, SIRs, insolvencies or settled policies.
The principles behind applying pro rata allocation versus joint and several liability are discussed at length in Insurance Co. of N. Am v. Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc., 633 F.2d 1212 (6th Cir. 1980) (applying pro rata allocation) and Keene Corp. v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 667 F.2d 1034 (D.C. 1981) (applying joint and several liability). Although 25 years have now passed since these two important allocation decisions, many state appellate courts have yet to rule on the allocation issue. In Wisconsin, it was not until recently that this issue was addressed directly even in trial courts.
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 Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?