Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Gaps in Coverage After <i>Farmers Mutual </i>
In two state supreme court decisions in the 1990s, New Jersey adopted a version of pro rata allocation in so-called “continuous trigger” cases. Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 712 A.2d 1116, 1123 (N.J. 1998); Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. United Ins. Co., 650 A.2d 974, 983 (N.J. 1994). Pro rata is one of two methodologies employed by courts in addressing the scope of coverage afforded by multiple triggered policies in cases involving loss over time such as asbestos, environmental contamination, or toxic torts, when there is no determination of the specific degree of harm that occurred in any one policy period.
In Owens-Illinois, the New Jersey Supreme Court rejected joint-and-several allocation, in which any triggered policy must respond to the entirety of the claim, instead adopting a form of pro rata allocation “related to both the time on the risk and the degree of risk assumed.” 650 A.2d at 995. This allocation approach was reaffirmed and elaborated upon in the subsequent Carter-Wallace decision. As noted by the Owens-Illinois court, a feature of pro rata allocation is that the policyholder is responsible for indemnity and defense costs during periods when it was uninsured or self-insured. 650 A.2d at 980 (citing Gulf Chem. & Metallurgical Corp. v. Associated Metals & Minerals Corp., 1 F.3d 365, 372 (5th Cir. 1993); Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc., 633 F.2d 1212 (6th Cir. 1980), clarified, 657 F.2d 814 (6th Cir. 1981), cert. denied , 454 U.S. 1109 (1981); Fireman's Fund Ins. Cos. v. Ex-Cell-O Corp., 685 F. Supp. 621, 626 (E.D. Mich. 1987); N. States Power Co. v. Fid. & Cas. Co., 523 N.W.2d 657, 662 (Minn. 1994)).
Recently, the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed the question of the role of a state insurance guaranty fund within a pro rata allocation scheme. The court's opinion has called into question New Jersey's approach to allocation more generally.
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.
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?