Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
How is loss allocated when bodily injury or property damage occurs in several successive policy periods? Can the insured choose the policy that it wishes to cover the loss, limiting itself to one deductible and forcing a single year”s primary (and excess) policy to respond? Or consistent with the policy, the rules of construction, and prudent public policy, should the loss be allocated evenly to each policy period in which injury or damage occurred ” allocating to the insured loss falling within each policy”s deductible and every period for which the insured is without insurance?
In answering these questions, courts have applied either the “all-sums” approach first set forth in Keene Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 667 F.2d 1034 (D.C. Cir. 1981) or the “pro rata” approach pioneered in Insurance Co. of North America v. Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc., 633 F.2d 1212 (6th Cir. 1980). Courts across the country remain divided on which approach is the most sound as a matter of law and public policy. Moreover, as many as 20 states have either no or very limited case law on this complex and often hotly disputed subject, making predictions on outcomes in those jurisdictions difficult. Simply put, the results in Long-Term Exposure (“LTE”) cases are driven by the state law governing the dispute. And in many cases, that law is limited, leaving to insurers and their counsel the delicate task of predicting which set of competing principles a court will apply to an often-intricate array of facts.
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.
Summary Judgment Denied Defendant in Declaratory Action by Producer of To Kill a Mockingbird Broadway Play Seeking Amateur Theatrical Rights
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
Executives have access to some of the company's most sensitive information, and they're increasingly being targeted by hackers looking to steal company secrets or to perpetrate cybercrimes.
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?