Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Litigation over the 'total' or 'absolute' pollution exclusion has grown over the past several years. The exclusion typically precludes coverage for any claims resulting from 'actual or threatened discharge, dispersal or release of any Pollutant.' 'Pollutant' is often defined as any type of 'irritant or contaminant,' including, among other things, smoke, soot, fumes, vapors, and chemicals. Despite the seemingly straightforward language of the exclusion, courts are divided over its application.
On one side, some courts hold that the exclusion is unambiguous, is indeed absolute, and applies to any set of facts that comes within its terms. Other courts have concluded that the exclusion is ambiguous and does not apply where the pollution in question goes beyond 'traditional' environmental pollution claims, e.g., landfill leaks and oil spills. Litigants and courts are now struggling with whether the exclusion also encompasses other types of claims that, on their face, would appear to fall within the exclusion's definitions, e.g., lead paint, carbon monoxide poisoning, and other toxic exposure claims (which some courts have deemed 'non-traditional' pollution claims).
This article first describes the split among the courts on this issue and then looks at the question in the specific sub-context of welding fumes claims, which, to date, have been considered by only two courts and have been resolved by those courts in completely opposite manners.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.