Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Insurer 's Conduct When No Bad Faith Is Pleaded
In what has commonly become known as the Koken decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Pennsylvania Insurance Department “does not possess the authority to require mandatory binding arbitration for UM and UIM disputes.” Prior to Koken, captioned as Insurance Federation of PA v. Department of Insurance, 585 Pa. 630, 889 A2d. 550 (2005), uninsured and underinsured claims were usually arbitrated before three-person panels with very limited appellate rights. Now, most of these claims are being litigated and many procedural and evidentiary issues are working their way through the courts.
Complaints filed to recover UM/UIM coverage range from simple single-count complaints alleging that the plaintiff was injured by the negligence of an uninsured or underinsured motorist and is entitled to recover UM/UIM coverage, to those also including claims for breach of contract or statutory bad faith pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. ' 8371. The inclusion of a statutory bad-faith claim provides a basis for the plaintiff to argue for a broad scope of discovery regarding the insurer's conduct and evaluation of the claim. However, the insurer may file a motion to sever and stay the bad-faith claim and argue for a more restricted scope of discovery.
The purpose of this article is to discuss some arguments relating to whether discovery of information relating to the insurer's conduct and claim handling is relevant in a UM/UIM claim pleaded as a breach of contract action without a statutory bad-faith claim. Relevant evidence “means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence,” according to Pa.R.E. 401.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
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.