Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Asbestos-Related Injury Is Not a 'Bodily Injury By Accident'
In its recent decision in Riverwood International Corp. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, No. 04-30608, 2005 WL 1840057 (5th Cir. Aug. 4, 2005), the Fifth Circuit affirmed an award of summary judgment in favor of an insurer, holding that asbestos-related injury is not a “bodily injury by accident.”
Riverwood involved a coverage dispute between Graphic Packaging International, Inc., formerly known as Riverwood International Corp. (“Riverwood”), and its insurer, Employers Insurance of Wausau (“Wausau”), which provided workers' compensation and employers' liability insurance to Riverwood from May 1974 to January 1984. The policies provided coverage for claims involving both “bodily injury by accident” and “bodily injury by disease,” and stated that “[t]he contraction of disease is not an accident within the meaning of the word 'accident' in the term 'bodily injury by accident' and only such disease as results directly from a bodily injury by accident is included within the term 'bodily injury by accident.'” Riverwood, 2005 WL 1840057, at *3. The policies further provided that “the term 'bodily injury by disease' includes only such disease as is not included within the term 'bodily injury by accident.'” Id.
In early 2000, numerous employees brought suit against Riverwood seeking damages for asbestos-related diseases allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos while working at Riverwood's paperboard manufacturing facility in Monroe, LA. Wausau denied Riverwood's claim for coverage for the underlying asbestos claims, based in part on an exclusion in the policies that barred coverage for “bodily injury by disease” claims unless they were brought within 36 months after the end of the policy period. Riverwood appealed the district court's decision granting summary judgment to Wausau based on its finding that the 36-month exclusion barred coverage. The issue facing the Fifth Circuit, therefore, was whether the underlying asbestos claims were “bodily injury by disease” claims subject to the 36-month exclusion, or whether the claims were “bodily injury by accident” claims not subject to the exclusion.
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.