Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In a multi-insurer coverage case, it is common for the insured to settle with one or more insurers before trial. When that happens in a case in which the court employs the “all sums” scope-of-coverage approach, can the non-settling insurers bring claims of their own against the settled carriers in an effort to reallocate some of their liability to their former co-defendants? If not, is there another mechanism to account for those settlements? This article addresses these issues.
As explained below, courts have generally refused to allow non-settling insurers to maintain claims against settled carriers. Instead, courts typically hold that, at most, the non-settling insurers may obtain a set-off or credit based on the prior settlements. When courts have allowed the non-settling insurers to seek a credit for the insured's prior settlements, they have usually employed the “pro tanto” approach, which caps any credit at the amount actually received by the insured in the prior settlements. The leading decisions further refine the analysis so that any credit is limited solely to the amount that the insured received for the specific claim that forms the basis of the judgment against the non-settling insurers.
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.
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.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
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.
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.