Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
New York's Insurance Notice Statute and Contractual Choice of Law
Two recent decisions have held that despite an express choice-of-law clause selecting New York law to apply to an insurance policy, a policyholder is not entitled to the protection of New York's statute requiring an insurance company to show prejudice before coverage is forfeited on the grounds of late notice, unless the policy was also issued or delivered in New York. These decisions are contrary to the general rule that a contractual choice-of-law clause should be read as selecting the substantive law of a particular state, and not its conflict-of-law rules. The “issued or delivered” language of the notice-prejudice statute is a conflict-of-law provision, and so does not apply to limit the statute's scope when the parties already have selected the substantive law of New York to apply to their contract. Nevertheless, given the recent case law disregarding this rule, policyholders should review carefully the wording of any choice-of-law clauses in their insurance policies, particularly when selecting New York law.
Despite Express New York Choice-of-Law Clauses, Courts Have Declined to Apply NY's Notice-Prejudice Statute
Insurance policies typically contain provisions requiring prompt notice to the insurance company of an event that could lead to coverage under the policy. There is a well-known split, though by now very lopsided, among U.S. jurisdictions as to whether an insurance company can succeed in barring coverage based on untimely notice if it has not suffered prejudice from the timing of notice. The majority and modern trend is for jurisdictions to apply the “notice-prejudice rule,” and hold that an insurance company cannot succeed on a late notice defense absent actual prejudice. See, e.g., Prince George's Cnty. v. Local Gov't Ins. Trust, 879 A.2d 81, 94 n.9 (Md. 2005) (collecting cases). A minority of jurisdictions follow the “no-prejudice rule,” and hold that coverage can be denied based on late notice even in the absence of any harm to the insurance company. Id .
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.