Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Anti-Concurrent Causation Clauses
Anti-concurrent causation clauses (“ACC clauses”) in all-risk first-party property policies were developed to contractually exclude coverage under a policy for a loss caused by a combination of covered and excluded causes of loss. ACC clauses generally preclude coverage for a loss where an excluded peril contributes directly or indirectly to a cause of loss “regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.” As explained in the following excerpt from the IRMI Glossary of Insurance and Risk Management Terms, www.irmi.com, the clause applies:
' either in sequential-cause situations, where the first event sets in motion a chain of events that causes a second event that causes the loss, or concurrent-cause situations, where two or more causes of loss happen simultaneously to produce the same injury or damage. If any cause of loss falls within the terms of a policy exclusion that is accompanied by ACC language, the loss will be excluded, regardless of whether another unexcluded cause of loss qualifies as the “proximate cause” under the jurisdiction's common law rules.
In other words, the ACC clause eliminates the need for an analysis of proximate causation or concurrent causation where the excluded peril contributes in any way or in any sequence to a loss. This article constitutes an overall review of ACC clauses in first-party property policies and their application across the United States. Most courts have found ACC clauses to be enforceable, although a handful of states have held that insurers may not contractually opt out of the state's causation doctrines, i.e., efficient proximate cause or concurrent causation. These clauses have not been uniformly interpreted due to the lack of uniformity in the manner in which states approach causation. See Garden State Indem. Co. v. Miller & Pincus, 340 N.J. Super. 148 (App. Div. 2001), and The Enigma of Causation in Insurance Contract Interpretation, IRMI, January 2003.
Origins of ACC Clauses
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 Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?