Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Contingent business interruption insurance found in many commercial property contracts is business interruption insurance with a single modification: While business interruption is triggered by damage to property of the insured, which leads to an interruption of the insured's business, contingent business interruption is triggered by damage to the property of a specified third party (such as a supplier to the insured, or a receiver of the insured's goods or services), which leads to an interruption of the insured's business. Each of the other policy requirements for business interruption coverage ' e.g., that the damage arise from an insured peril, that there be a “necessary interruption” or suspension of the insured's business, that there be a compensable “actual loss,” etc. ' apply with equal force to a claim for contingent business interruption. The same is true of other forms of contingent coverage extending the time element provisions of a property insurance policy. For example, contingent extra expense incorporates the requirements found in the extra expense provision of the policy, save the one requirement that is explicitly altered ' ownership of the property damaged.
Brokers and insureds sometimes create controversies by failing to follow the bedrock principle that contingent coverage is predicated on the same requirements as the time element provision it operates to extend. Other questions that can arise concern the specific contours of the extension embodied in the contingent coverage provision ' i.e., does the third party entity that sustained property damage fall within one of the categories of third parties specified in the contingent provision? Disputes in both areas can be avoided by applying the predicate that each form of contingent coverage incorporates the requirements of the provision it extends, except to the extent that the contingent coverage specifically alters the requirement with respect to ownership of the property damaged.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A common question that commercial landlords and tenants face is which of them is responsible for a repair to the subject premises. These disputes often center on whether the repair is "structural" or "nonstructural."