Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Case Briefs
Insurer That Complies with Policy Obligations Still Liable for Bad Faith
In Archdale v. American Inter- national Specialty Lines Insurance Co. (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2007), American International Specialty ('AIS') paid for the insured's defense in underlying litigation, but ignored multiple settlement offers within policy limits. The underlying trial resulted in a judgment in excess of policy limits. Subsequently, AIS paid its policy limit toward a post-judgment settlement. Regardless, the insured sued for both contractual and tortious bad faith and sought to recover the amount of the excess judgment. AIS moved for summary judgment, claiming that the tort claim was barred by a two-year statute of limitations, and that it was not liable for breach of contract because it defended the insured in the underlying action and paid out its policy limit in settlement. The court agreed regarding the tort claim, but disagreed regarding the contractual bad faith claim.
The court found that AIS had complied with its 'express' policy obligations (defined as the duties to defend and to pay policy limits with respect to settlements or judgments in underlying litigation). However, the court stated that AIS's policy also included 'implied' obligations ' 'an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that neither party will do anything which will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement.' The court then discussed the standards governing an insurer's 'duty to settle' and specifically acknowledged that: 1) 'when 'there is a great risk of recovery beyond the policy limits so that the most reasonable manner of disposing of the claim is a settlement which can be made within those limits, a consideration in good faith of the insured's interests required the insurer to settle the claim,” and 2) 'the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing imposes a duty on an insurer to accept a reasonable offer to settle a claim against its insured.' Thus, according to the court 'whether a liability insurer's failure to accept a settlement offer constituted a breach of the implied covenant depends on whether that settlement offer was 'reasonable.' The existence of a coverage dispute … is simply not a proper consideration in deciding whether to accept an offer to settle the claim against the insured.'
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.