Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Courts Favor Insurers in Airport Cases Seeking Civil Authority Coverage After 9/11
On the morning of 9/11, the Federal Aviation Administration reacted to the unfolding national disaster by issuing a 'ground stop order' of all aircraft departures regardless of destination. This ground stop order was lifted on Sept. 14, 2001. Due to the events of 9/11, numerous policyholders sought coverage under first-party property policies for coverage of their business interruption losses related to operations at the country's airports. The policyholders claimed that the ground stop order or other governmental orders closed the airports and gave rise to coverage under their policies' Civil Authority provision. Based on varying policy language, insurers resisted these claims on several grounds, including that 1) the ground stop order did not bar access to the airports, 2) the ground stop order was not issued due to property damage, and 3) the ground stop order was not issued due to damage to the insured's property or to adjacent property.
To date, the majority of courts deciding these claims have ruled in favor of the insurers. The most recent decision upholding summary judgment for an insurer is United Air Lines, Inc., v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, 439 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2006), decided by the Second Circuit on Feb. 22, 2006. The Second Circuit rejected United Air Lines' claim for civil authority coverage on the basis that the ground stop order and another order closing Reagan Washington National Airport were issued 'based on fears of future attacks,' not as a result of property damage at the Pentagon. 439 F.3d at 134. In doing so, the Second Circuit joined a circle of courts deciding similar claims related to airports in Chicago, Philadelphia, and, in one case, across the nation. See City of Chicago v. Factory Mutual Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 02-C-7023, 2004 WL 549447 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2004); The Philadelphia Parking Authority v. Federal Ins. Co., Civ. Action No. 03-Civ-6748 (DAB), slip op. (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2005); The Paradies Shops, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co, Civil Action No. 1:03-CV-3154 (JEC), slip op. (N.D. Ga. Dec. 15, 2004).
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.