Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Does It Really Matter Who Pays?
After a liability insurance company denies coverage for a lawsuit filed against its policyholder, the policyholder is left to manage the defense and settlement of the lawsuit. Sometimes, the policyholder is forced to, or elects to, have another person or entity pay for the defense fees, settlement, or judgment. This leads to the inevitable question of whether the policyholder can recover from its liability insurer sums paid for defense fees, settlement, or judgment if, after the insurance company has wrongfully denied coverage, the policyholder's defense bills, settlement, or a judgment are paid for by a non-insured person or entity. While it should not matter who pays once a liability insurer has breached its contract, some courts have denied policyholders recoveries when a non-insured third-party steps in for the breaching liability insurer and pays the policyholder's defense fees, a settlement, or the judgment.
As the name suggests, liability insurance policies are designed to protect policyholders from liability. For example, many liability policies require the insurer to pay all sums that the policyholder is 'legally obligated to pay as damages.' Liability insurance policies also typically require insurers to defend actions potentially within the coverage of the policy. 'The major substantive distinction between a liability policy and an indemnity contract is that payment of a claim by the insured is a condition precedent to the insured's right to recover under the indemnity contract, but not under the liability contract.' Couch on Insurance 2d '103:3 at 103:14 (2005) (footnoted omitted).
Liability insurance companies sometimes assert that there is no coverage if, subsequent to incurring liability, some other party actually pays the sums the policyholder is obligated to pay as defense fees, for a settlement or as a judgment. The basis for this argument varies. Sometimes insurance companies argue that in such situations the policyholder has suffered no 'damages.' Other times, insurers argue that they are not liable because the 'real party in interest' (ie, the party paying the fees, settlement, or judgment) is not in the case. On the other hand, if the non-insured third party is a litigant in the coverage litigation, the insurers often argue that the 'no-assignment' provision of the policy was violated by the assertion of a claim by the non-insured party.
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.
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.
Warehouse Liability: Know Before You Stow!
As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?