Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A Viking on Choppy Waters
When the New York Court of Appeals issued its decision in Consolidated Edison Company v. Allstate Insurance Co. 98 N.Y.2d 208 (2002), the issue of allocating liability for continuing losses among multiple insurers consecutively liable for the loss appeared to be all but settled. Con Ed held that under policies providing coverage for “all sums” attributable to damage occurring “during the policy period,” where there was no ability to pinpoint exactly when the loss occurred, the most equitable means of apportioning the liability for the losses is in direct proportion to each insurer's time on the risk, absent policy language to the contrary. Although the Con Ed court cautioned that it had not delivered “the last word on pro-ration,” in practice New York courts have presumed that pro rata allocation will apply in continuing injury cases involving standard CGL policy language absent unusual circumstances. See, e.g., Serio v. Public Service Mut. Ins. Co., 759 N.Y.S.2d 110 (App. Div. 2nd Dep't 2003).
This approach to allocation has been called into question, however, by the recent decision of the Delaware Court of Chancery in Viking Pump, Inc. v. Century Indem. Co., 2009 WL 3297559 (Oct. 14, 2009). Purportedly applying New York law, the Viking Pump court concluded that non-cumulation and prior insurance clauses in the policies at issue effectively trumped an express limitation of coverage to injuries taking place “during the policy period.” The court reached this conclusion by applying presumptions, unprecedented in New York law, that exposure to asbestos rather than injury triggers general liability coverage and that each claimant's exposure to asbestos invariably constitutes a separate occurrence. In charting this novel route to its all-sums result, Viking Pump not only distorts New York's allocation rules in favor of contrary Delaware law, but also muddies other deep waters of New York coverage jurisprudence including the law governing trigger and number-of-occurrences.
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.
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.
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.
Warehouse Liability: Know Before You Stow!
As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.
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.