Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Allocating Costs to Policyholders for Periods of No Insurance
In cases involving insurance coverage for injury or damage that has been held to have taken place over an extended time period, a majority of courts today allocate costs using the pro rata method, which assigns to each policy in effect during the applicable time period the share of costs proportionate to the amount of injury or damage that took place while the policy was in effect.
Pro rata allocation is often predicated on language contained in most general liability policies that limits coverage to injury or damage that takes place during the policy period. As is also consistent with that policy language, courts applying pro rata allocation generally require the policyholder to pay the costs attributable to periods for which it has no insurance coverage, either because it did not purchase any (or not enough), it claims to have purchased insurance but lost the policies, or it purchased insurance from an insurer which subsequently became insolvent.
A few courts, however, do not require the policyholder to pay the costs attributable to periods of injury when coverage for the risk at issue was not available in the insurance market, instead excluding those periods from the total number of years over which costs are allocated. That approach, sometimes called the “unavailability exception,” forces insurers for other policy periods to bear the costs of the periods when no insurance was found to have been available.
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.
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.
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.