Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.