Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Horns of a Defense Counsel Dilemma
What happens when an attorney acts on behalf of two clients with potentially diverging interests ' a policyholder in the midst of defending important litigation and the liability insurance company paying the defense bills? How can policyholders ensure that insurance company-appointed defense counsel are able to defend the policyholder without worry of conflicts with the insurance company? This article examines the conflicts that surround the so-called 'tripartite relationship' among policyholder, insurance company, and defense counsel hired by the insurance company, as well as techniques to preserve defense counsel's un-conflicted duty to its client, the policyholder. Insurance conflicts counsel is one such technique.
Three's a Crowd: The Duty to Defend the Tripartite Relationship
The tripartite relationship has its origins in the two-part duty of the insurance company as defined in the typical insurance policy. Liability insurance policies typically provide protection against: 1) the cost of defending a lawsuit; and 2) any damages arising out of or related to the claim, such as the cost of a settlement or an eventual jury verdict. As a general rule, an insurance company's duty to defend the policyholder is much broader than its duty to indemnify. Indeed, the duty to defend may be activated or 'triggered' even if the insurance company ultimately has no obligation to indemnify the policyholder for a loss. If a complaint states several potential grounds of liability and any single one of those grounds is potentially covered by any provision of the insurance policy, the policyholder is entitled to a defense. The insurance company is not excused from providing a defense unless the complaint against the policyholder clearly shows that there is no possible basis for coverage.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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 Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?