Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Two Small Words, One Great Divide
Even the smallest words can carry controlling meaning. At least, that's what the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held in Mutual Benefit Insurance Company v. Politsopoulos, where it joined the majority of other jurisdictions that have considered the issue in holding that a policy providing an exclusion for an employee of “the insured” meant an employee of the insured seeking coverage under the policy, but not of any of the other insureds under the policy, or even of the Named Insured.
This question, involving the interpretation of two seemingly straightforward words, has lingered in the insurance industry for over 50 years. In 1961, the Insurance Counsel Journal published an article by Norman Risjord and Jane Austin, titled “Who Is 'The Insured'” Revisited, which addressed just this question. Risjord and Austin explained that insurers had always intended the term “the insured” to refer only to the entity claiming coverage. However, at that time, nearly all courts that had addressed the issue had reached a different conclusion ' holding that “the insured” could mean any of the insureds under the policy. “Ironically, this is the only known situation where many of the courts persist in erring in favor of the insurance companies.” Norman E. Risjord and Jane M. Austin, “Who Is 'The Insured'” Revisited, 28 Ins. Counsel. J . 100, 101 (1961) (emphasis in original).
In order to clarify that “the insured” meant solely the insured seeking coverage, the National Bureau of Casualty Underwriters and the Mutual Insurance Rating Bureau created a new condition called the “Severability of Interests” condition. That condition states that the insurance applies separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought. Therefore, the insured seeking coverage would necessarily be considered separately from any other insured.
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.