Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Consent-to-assignment clauses are integral features of most commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies because they eliminate the potential burden of unknown parties seeking insurance coverage for liability that an insurer did not foresee or intend to cover. Pursuant to these clauses, an insured cannot assign its interest in insurance benefits to another party without the insurer's consent. Given their salutary purposes, California courts have historically upheld the validity of these consent-to-assignment clauses in CGL policies, even in situations where the event giving rise to liability occurred prior to the putative assignment. However, the California Supreme Court recently reversed course and overturned one of its earlier decisions, rejecting consent-to-assignment clauses as a bar to coverage where the loss at issue pre-dates the assignment.
This article: 1) provides an overview of consent-to-assignment clauses in CGL policies; 2) discusses the California Supreme Court's decision in Henkel; and 3) examines the California Supreme Court decision in Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court and its impact on the enforceability of consent-to-assignment clauses.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
A federal district court in Miami, FL, has ruled that former National Basketball Association star Shaquille O'Neal will have to face a lawsuit over his promotion of unregistered securities in the form of cryptocurrency tokens and that he was a "seller" of these unregistered securities.
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.
This article reviews the fundamental underpinnings of the concept of insurable interest, and certain recent cases that have grappled with the scope of insurable interest and have articulated a more meaningful application of the concept to claims under first-party property policies.