Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A question routinely asked about liability insurance claims seems clear and straightforward on its face: “Is the claim covered?” Because “coverage,” however, typically invokes two concepts, rather than one, such a question often is superficial and misleading. Liability insurance policies, particularly at the primary and umbrella levels, usually provide both defense and indemnity coverage. Each coverage is quite valuable to policyholders, and the defense coverage can be the much more valuable of the two, particularly when underlying cases are complex and, accordingly, expensive to defend, but present little or no prospect of policyholder liability.
Of these two types of coverage, defense coverage also is widely understood to be the broader. In other words, a policy may provide defense coverage but, ultimately, no indemnity coverage. Such variances arise from the nature of “notice” pleading and the unpredictability of underlying litigation. Under “notice” pleading utilized in federal courts and most state courts, it often is difficult and sometimes impossible to discern with precision at the outset of litigation the full nature of all underlying claims against the policyholder. Even when such claims can be discerned with precision, it often is impossible to know at the outset which of the claims, if any, will be successful against the policyholder. When these factors all play out, it is common for insurers to have to pay defense costs but not indemnity costs. Hence, it is said that defense coverage is broader than indemnity coverage.
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.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.