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.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
A federal district court in Miami, FL, has ruled that former National Basketball Association star Shaquille O'Neal will have to face a lawsuit over his promotion of unregistered securities in the form of cryptocurrency tokens and that he was a "seller" of these unregistered securities.
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.
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?