Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
California Supreme Court Enforces Arbitration Clause: No Conflict with 'Service of Suit' Provision
In Boghos v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, 30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 787, 115 P.3d 68 (July 18, 2005), the California Supreme Court held that a disability insurance policy's arbitration and service of suit clauses did not conflict and that the arbitration clause was therefore enforceable. The court in Boghos also concluded that the policy's stipulation that the insured share arbitration costs with the insurer did not render the arbitration clause unenforceable. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case to the trial court.
In September 1998, Antone Boghos, the owner of a plumbing business, applied for disability insurance underwritten by certain Lloyd's of London underwriters (“Lloyd's”). The application contained an arbitration provision. The subsequent policy's arbitration clause provided in part:
BINDING ARBITRATION: Not withstanding [sic] any other item set forth [sic] herein, the parties hereby agree that any dispute which arises shall be settled in Binding Arbitration. By agreeing to Binding Arbitration, all parties acknowledge and agree that they waive their right to a trial by jury. …
The policy also set forth that the venue of arbitration would be Los Angeles County unless the parties agreed otherwise. According to the policy, arbitration costs would be equally split among the parties.
In addition to the arbitration clause, the policy contained a “service of suit” clause. That provision stated that, “In the event of the failure of underwriters to pay any amount claimed to be due under the insurance described herein, Underwriters have agreed that, at the request of the Assured (or Reinsured) they will submit to the jurisdiction of a court of competent jurisdiction within the United States.”
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.