Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Grouping Language in NY After GE Footnote Number Three
The determination of the number of occurrences in coverage litigation involving mass torts has significant ramifications. The definition of “occurrence” in general liability policies can be critical when determining the amounts of available coverage or which insurers ' primary or excess ' must provide that coverage. If policies include high per-occurrence deductibles or self-insured retentions, a determination that multiple claims must be treated as separate occurrences may effectively limit the amount of coverage available by requiring the policyholder to satisfy the deductible for each claim individually before ever accessing coverage. If policies provide for “first dollar coverage,” a determination that multiple claims are separate occurrences may maximize coverage at the primary level by reducing the likelihood that per-occurrence limits on coverage will apply. By contrast, a determination that multiple claims constitute a single occurrence may reduce the primary insurer's exposure while increasing the likelihood that excess insurers' policies will be attached.
In a widely anticipated 2007 decision, the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether asbestos personal injury claims constitute a single occurrence versus multiple occurrences. In Appalachian Insurance Co. v. General Electric Co., 8 N.Y.3d 162 (2007) (“GE“), the Court of Appeals reaffirmed that the number of occurrences is ordinarily determined by the “unfortunate event” test first adopted in Arthur A. Johnson Corp. v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America, 164 N.E.2d 704 (N.Y. 1959). The “unfortunate event” test is a fact-specific inquiry that focuses on the temporal and spatial proximity between the incidents causing the injury or loss, and whether the incidents were part of the same causal continuum, unbroken by intervening causes or factors. GE at 171-72. The GE court stated that the “unfortunate event” test does not uniformly yield a single or multiple occurrence result, but rather “[e]ach mass tort scenario must be examined separately under the [test].” Id. at 174. Nevertheless, under this test, it is unlikely that a New York court would find that multiple underlying incidents can be aggregated as a single occurrence if the incidents share few commonalities.
Beach Boys Songs Written Decades Ago Triggered Current Quarrel With Lawyers
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.
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.
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.
Transfer Tax Implications on Real Property Leases
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.