Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Damages Beyond the Policy Limits
The New York Court of Appeals recently rendered two important insurance coverage decisions in Bi-Economy Market, Inc. v. Harleysville Insurance Co. of New York, No. 14, slip op. (N.Y. Feb. 19, 2008) ('Bi-Economy') and Panasia Estates, Inc. v. Hudson Insurance Co., No. 15, slip op. (N.Y. Feb. 19, 2008) ('Panasia') that are certain to have a dramatic effect on the relationship between New York policyholders and their insurers.
Prior to the recent pronouncement by the Court of Appeals in Bi-Economy and Panasia, New York law was somewhat unsettled regarding whether a policyholder was entitled to recover damages in excess of the stated limits of the policy. But, for the first time, in Bi-Economy and Panasia, the New York Court of Appeals recognized the viability of policyholders' claims for consequential damages in excess of the stated limits of the insurance policy. And while New York has historically been viewed by some as a less progressive jurisdiction for policyholders, several
New York decisions, including, the Appellate Division, First Department's, decision in Acquista v. New York Life Insurance Co., 730 N.Y.S.2d 272 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 2001), and Eurospark Industries, Inc. v. Massachusetts Bay Insur- ance Co. (In re Eurospark Industries, Inc.) 288 B.R. 177 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2003), set the stage for the Court of Appeals' decisions in Bi-Economy and Panasia. Taken together, Acquista, Eurospark, Bi-Economy, and Panasia offer important lessons on how policyholders should plead their cases against recalcitrant insurance companies and should go a long way toward changing the manner in which insurance companies respond to their policyholders in New York.
Setting the Stage for Consequential Damages
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.