Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Joint-and-Several Allocation and Policy Provisions Governing the Stacking of Limits
The Joint-and-Several Allocation Scheme
It is not uncommon for an insurer to issue successive liability policies to its policyholders. When a loss occurs at a finite temporal point, such as a car accident or factory explosion, the parties generally do not face any difficulty in determining which policies will be called upon to respond. On the other hand, in circumstances involving long-term, progressive injury, such as injuries caused by asbestos or silica exposure, the issue of which particular policy or policies must respond (subject, of course, to the policies' terms, conditions, and limitations) is often in dispute.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has spoken on this issue and adopted a 'multiple trigger' approach, whereby, under primary insurance policies obligating the insurer to 'pay on behalf of the Insured all sums which the Insured shall become legally obligated to pay,' all stages of the disease process, from initial exposure through incapacitation, are deemed to be 'bodily injury' triggering coverage under all primary policies on the risk during the entire period in which the disease evolved. J.H. France Refractories Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 626 A.2d 502, 506-08 (Pa. 1993). The court also ruled that any primary insurer whose policy provides coverage during the trigger period is jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the policyholder's loss, up to the policy limits, even if some of the injury occurred outside of the policy period. Id. at 507-09. Thus, under J.H. France, the policyholder is 'free to select the policy or policies under which it is to be indemnified.' Id. at 508. Joint-and-several or 'all sums' allocation such as that endorsed by J.H. France is based on the view that a progressive loss is indivisible and, therefore, incapable of being allocated to particular policies or years.
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.