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).
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
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.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
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.