Businesses purchase fidelity insurance to cover their losses from crime such as employee theft and forgery. This need is usually most pronounced for banks and other financial service firms, where employees have access to enormous amounts of money. For these policyholders, misplaced trust in a resourceful employee can result in millions of dollars disappearing from the policyholder or its clients with only a few keystrokes.
Many policyholders have large deductibles or retentions in their liability policies. Insurers that agree to defend policyholders against a claim falling within the coverage of a liability policy typically also want to control the litigation strategy and/or settlement discussions. What happens when the insurer wants to settle a claim within the deductible or retention amount, making the policyholder liable for the entire settlement, but the policyholder does not want to settle?
In coverage litigation, insurers often treat extrinsic evidence as if it were radioactive material, and there is some justification for this instinct. Generally, consideration of extrinsic evidence connotes an ambiguity in policy language, and there are several reasons why insurers seek to avoid arguing, or even intimating, that the language at issue in an insurance policy is ambiguous.
The Court of Appeal of California, Second District, decided that any interests in Superman copyrights or termination rights held by Laura Siegel Larson, daughter of Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel, were her separate property, rather than community property of her marriage.
As a child, Geoffrey Gerber grabbed comic books out of his dentist's treat bag after checkups. As an intellectual-property partner at Husch Blackwell Sanders, he grabs comic books ' key elements now in a substantial portion of his practice ' out of his litigator's case. 'There's a tremendous amount of comic-book litigation out there,' says Gerber, who practices in St. Louis for the newly merged firm. He adds that comic books, which hit it big in the 1930s as mainstream media, are 'fairly new media' in the scope of entertainment.
It's time to start thinking about work for hire again. Technically, 2013 is the first year qualified recording artists may exercise the termination right that will result in reversion to them of the copyrights in their sound recordings from their record labels. There is no doubt about it: Whether referred to hyperbolically as a 'time bomb' or more benignly as a 'leak' in the record company's vaults, how the sound recording work-for-hire problem is resolved will have enormous financial and political impact on both record labels and recording artists.
The establishment of safe thresholds for human exposure to toxic substances has proved to be among the most controversial issues in the environmental and occupational safety and health arena. This article discusses how the Threshold Limit Values ("TLVs") are typically used in toxic tort litigation, explores the dimensions of the controversy surrounding their use, and addresses a recent industry lawsuit.
There is a general distrust and downright loathing of referees in the sports world. In the legal industry, however, lawyers are learning that the referee can be a powerful ally in deterring litigation and resolving cases early and successfully. While the legal profession will always have its fair share of Bobby Knights and John McEnroes, the referee appears to be gaining the upper hand.
Unfortunately, adverse drug reaction reports collected and causality assessments made in the course of post-marketing surveillance have increasingly become fodder for plaintiffs' attorneys attempting to prove causation. Courts, however, properly have precluded plaintiffs from presenting post-marketing surveillance materials, most recently refusing to allow plaintiffs to introduce company causality assessments based on adverse drug reaction reports as evidence of causation and from using these reports and assessments as bases for expert opinions on causation.
In a proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ('TTAB'), if your adversary is a foreign entity with no employees in the United States, can you compel an oral deposition of the entity in this country? 'No,' says the TTAB, through its Manual of Procedure ('TBMP'). 'Yes,' says the Fourth Circuit, relying on '24 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. '24 in Rosenruist-Gestao E Servicos LDA v. Virgin Enterprises Ltd., 511 F.3d 437 (4th Cir. 2007).
