Most insurance coverage litigation starts with a fundamental dispute over what an insurance policy means. Unfortunately, while California appellate courts have addressed the subject for decades, and while the California Supreme Court attempted to restate the basic principles, there still is considerable debate among litigants and courts as to how insurance policies are to be interpreted. Insurance carriers often contend that California is not as 'pro-insured' as it once was regarded. They often argue that insurance policies should be interpreted simply based on policy language, without reference to any external information, and that if the insured is 'sophisticated,' any ambiguity should be resolved against coverage. However, neither of these arguments is in accord with California law.
- November 30, 2006Kirk A. Pasich
If a doctor's mistakes can be broadcast over the Internet for all the world to see, will he or she be more or less likely to settle a claim? What about plaintiffs? What are the implications for them should their suits against doctors and hospitals some day become public knowledge?
Government entities, private groups and even disgruntled private citizens are starting to use the Internet to broadcast their displeasure with what they see as 'dangerous doctors' or 'money-grubbing plaintiffs,' spreading the reach of the Web beyond the boundaries of the litigation itself by naming names of those who sue or are sued for medical malpractice.November 29, 2006Debra Sydnor and Joshua BeckerCopyright Renewal/'Posthumous Work'
Radio Broadcasting/Sponsored Airplay
Royalty Waiver/Copyright Not TransferredNovember 29, 2006Stan SoocherA look at the Duty to Inquire.
November 29, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |In-depth analysis of recent rulings.
November 29, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |This is Part Two of a two-part interview, coordinated by Entertainment Law & Finance Editor-in-Chief Stan Soocher, with Santa Monica-CA-based entertainment Henry Root. In Part One, Root, who has extensive experience handling legal issues for music-driven television productions, discussed considerations in clearing rights in, and determining fees for, songs and sound recordings used in a production, as well as how option rights for the music are negotiated. Root also began, and continues here, a discussion of the issues to be negotiated for a record label to waive its exclusive right to the services of an artist who will appear in a TV music production. Root also discusses copyrights in artist TV performances, reciprocal rights with record labels, holdbacks on exploitation, and warranties and representations.
November 29, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |A Look at a recent Donnelly Act claim.
November 29, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |In last month's issue, we looked at a hypothetical case in which Lynne and her soon-to-be ex-husband David have drafted a child custody agreement giving Lynne primary legal and physical custody of their daughter, Jane. Neither had raised the issue of what would happen if the primary custodial parent wanted to relocate. Under the governing law of their state, unless the settlement agreement specifically states otherwise, the primary custodial parent is presumed to be able to move to another state for a promotion or unique job opportunity. Lynne informed her attorney that she had accepted a unique job opportunity that would require her to move to another state shortly after the settlement agreement's signing. Our dilemma was: What could, or should, the attorney do to protect Jane's interests? This month, we conclude the discussion.
November 29, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |A federal appeals court is weighing whether to review a controversial tax decision in which a unanimous three-judge panel struck down as unconstitutional the federal income tax on nonphysical, compensatory damages awards. (See 'Court Tosses Federal Tax Statute Covering Emotional Damages,' Medical Malpractice Law & Strategy, Nov. 2006). Claiming the case is one of 'exceptional importance' to the execution of the nation's tax laws, the Bush administration recently asked the full U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to rehear Murphy v. U.S., No. 05-5139. In October, the court, on its own motion, ordered lawyers for Marrita Murphy to respond to the government's rehearing petition, a signal that the court is interested, according to some circuit watchers.
November 29, 2006Marcia Coyle