Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
$2.3 Million Verdict Affirmed for Insurance Agent Under Connecticut Franchise Act
In an Oct. 25, 2005 decision, a Connecticut District Court denied an insurance company's motion to set aside a $2.3 million verdict on the plaintiff-agent's wrongful termination claim, concluding that company's relationship with its independent sales agent constituted a franchise under the Connecticut Franchise Act, '42-133e et seq. (“CFA”).
In Charts v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Nationwide terminated one of its longtime Connecticut-based insurance agents, Alex Charts, pursuant to a contract that permitted Nationwide to terminate the agreement “at anytime after written notice.” Charts responded by filing a three-count complaint, alleging violations of the CFA, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”) and the common law implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Among other things, Charts claimed that his relationship with Nationwide was a franchise under the CFA because the agreement between the parties required him to operate his agency in strict accordance with Nationwide's standards; follow a marketing plan prescribed in large part and controlled by Nationwide; associate with Nationwide's trademarks; and sell products at prices that Nationwide set and controlled. Following a 9-day trial, the jury entered a verdict finding for Charts on all three counts and awarding him $2.3 million in compensatory damages.
Nationwide raised several arguments in its post-trial motions. It first contended that the CFA claims should not have gone to the jury at all. However, the district court, while acknowledging that there was a split of authority among Connecticut trial courts on the issue, held that Nationwide had waived the argument by failing to object to Charts' jury demand at any point before the jury returned its verdict.
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.