Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Case Briefs
Oregon Intermediate Court Takes a Stand on Allocation and Settlements
In Cascade Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co., et al., No. A118185 (Or. Ct. App. May 17, 2006), an Oregon intermediate appellate court, applying Oregon law, reversed a trial court's pro rata allocation of a policyholder's liability for environmental contamination, holding that the lone remaining non-settling excess insurer was jointly and severally liable for all of the policyholder's unreimbursed past and future remediation and defense costs until exhaustion of its policy limits. The court also: 1) ordered the insurer to pay prejudgment interest from the date of the settlement exhausting the primary insurance coverage below the insurer's policies; and 2) reversed the trial court's decision not to award attorneys' fees to the policyholder, remanding the issue to the trial court for further consideration. In its decision, the court did not address the recently enacted Oregon claims statute, ORS 465.480, including whe-ther the statute was constitutional and, if so, whether it mandated the same result.
Since the mid-1950s, the policyholder owned and operated an in-dustrial facility in Oregon. From 1961 until 1975, the policyholder used trichloroethylene ('TCE') as a solvent to degrease and clean metal parts at the facility. In the 1980s, state and federal environmental agencies be-gan investigating groundwater contamination around the plant. After discovery of contaminated groundwater, a nearby landowner sued the policyholder to recover its expenses associated with cleaning up contamination in that area. After a trial, a federal district court concluded that the policyholder was responsible for 70% of the property owner's cleanup costs.
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.
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.
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.
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.