Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Maximizing Coverage Under the 'Cause Test'
The determination of the number of occurrences that arise under an insurance policy can have a profound effect on the availability of coverage, from the perspective of the policyholder, or upon the limitation of coverage, from the perspective of the insurer. Although the stakes can be enormous, the math is fairly simple. Consider a policyholder that faces a large liability arising from a substantial number of small claims. If the policyholder has a coverage program that provides a low per-occurrence deductible or self-insured retention, or no per-occurrence deductible or self-insured retention, a judicial determination that there are many occurrences likely will have the effect of maximizing the policyholder's recovery. On the other hand, if that same policyholder has a coverage program with a high per-occurrence deductible or self-insured retention, which may exceed the amount of most if not all of the single claims, a judicial determination that the claims constitute a single occurrence likely will maximize the policyholder's recovery.
Because court decisions on the number of occurrences that arise from a particular event or series of events can have a great impact on insurers' coverage responsibilities, such issues often are litigated vigorously. These issues typically have arisen in high-dollar, multiple-claim cases such as those involving asbestos, lead paint, and contaminated food. The issues, however, can be of great importance in cases involving single, catastrophic events, as well. Following the World Trade Center attacks, for example, the insured property owner argued that the attacks constituted two occurrences, one for each tower, entitling the policyholder to recover its per occurrence limits two times. See SR International Business Ins. Co. Ltd. v. World Trade Center Properties LLC, 222 F.Supp.2d 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Conversely, the insurers argued, and the court agreed, that only one occurrence had arisen under the policies. Id. (finding the attack constituted only one occurrence where policies defined 'occurrence' to mean 'all losses … that are attributable … to one cause or to one series of similar causes ' ') (aff'd by 345 F.3d 154). That decision had the effect of drastically limiting coverage for the losses incurred by the policyholder.
Definition of 'Occurrence'
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.