Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Supreme Court Ruling in Integrity Is 'Absolute' for Reinsurers
In a ruling that affects both insurance and reinsurance companies as well as policy-holders of insolvent insurers subject to the New Jersey's Insurer Liquidation Act N.J.S.A. 17:30C-1 et seq. (the 'Act'), in its Dec. 13, 2007 opinion entitled In The Matter of The Liquidation of Integrity Insurance Company 193 N.J. 886, 935 A.2d 1184, ('In re Integrity'), the New Jersey Supreme Court, in a 3-2 decision in a case of first impression, definitively excluded contingent claims that are 'incurred but not reported' ('IBNR claims') from sharing in the distribution of assets of an insolvent insurer.
Background
In re Integrity is a continuing saga that has been ongoing for over 20 years. Prior to its insolvency in 1987, Integrity Insurance Company ('Integrity') operated as a property, casualty and excess insurer that transacted business throughout the United States. The New Jersey Commissioner of Insurance was appointed by the Court as Liquidator pursuant to the Act. Thereafter, the Commissioner marshaled Integrity's assets and liabilities and began the liquidation process for the benefit of all claimants against the insolvent estate and also established a bar date by which time all claims against Integrity had to be filed, including all policyholder protection claims. The filing of policyholder protection claims allowed claimants whose claims were contingent and not yet valued to file specific claims later when the particulars became known, even if that occurred after the bar date. As of the bar date, approximately 26,000 claims had been filed against the insolvent estate including thousands of policyholder protection claims.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?