Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Is Your Company Sitting on Buried Treasure?
Many companies are sitting on buried treasure and do not even know about it. Buried treasure is often found in insurance policies the company purchased, including policies purchased many years ago. In other cases, substantial resources are unlocked in policies the company inherited through a merger or acquisition. This buried treasure can often be worth millions or even tens of millions of dollars that go directly to a company's bottom line. This may sound too good to be true, but it happens more often than you might think. The key is to know where to look for buried treasure in your insurance resources and what to do if you find it.
In order to find buried treasure in your company's insurance policies, it is first important to understand how it was lost in the first place. There are many ways in which companies overlook or fail to pursue available insurance resources. Here are some of the more common.
A claim was submitted, but the insurance company denied coverage and the denial was not challenged.
When this happens, companies often simply engage counsel at their own expense and deal with the claim, often by paying a settlement or judgment. As the matter proceeds, often at a cost of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, the claim under the policy is forgotten.
However, all may not be lost. So long as the matter is within the state's statute of limitations, the company can probably still challenge the denial (in litigation if necessary) and potentially recoup defense costs as well as settlement and judgment expenses. Of course, there still has to be a basis for coverage under the policy, but many times insurers “win” simply by denying the claim and the insured not pursuing coverage.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.