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.
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.
Beach Boys Songs Written Decades Ago Triggered Current Quarrel With Lawyers
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.
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.
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.
Transfer Tax Implications on Real Property Leases
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.