Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
Features
Business Interruption coverage is contained in most first-party commercial property insurance and is meant to provide coverage where there is a suspension of business caused by direct physical loss to the property. Such policies also contain a "Civil Authority" provision, which typically states that the insurer will pay business income losses caused by the action of civil authority that prohibits access to the described premises due to direct physical loss of or damage to property, other than the described premises, caused by or resulting from a Covered Cause of Loss.
Features
It is fairly well established in many courts across the United States that "late notice" of a claim under an occurrence-based commercial general liability ("CGL") policy presents a problem for insureds only when it "actually" and "substantially prejudices" an insurer. In light of that standard, insurers appear to face high hurdles if they rely on notice issues to avoid coverage. At the very least, it seems that the question of prejudice is highly factual and thus should be preserved for a jury to decide.
The scams often involve tricking attorneys into an engagement letter. Losses result from lawyers' frequent misunderstanding of banking regulations, which permit a bank to advise that "funds are available" before a check actually has cleared.
Features
Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
Features
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
There is an insidious trend developing in the franchise sales arena: Lawyers are being sued when bad things happen to a franchisee as a result of alleged defects or misdeeds in the franchise sales process. The problem, as so often is the case, is defining the boundaries to which the lawyer must adhere. I am particularly troubled about this trend to expand the boundaries beyond historical expectations.
The Supreme Court of Ohio recently held that a court cannot make a subjective inquiry into a gasoline distributor's motives in setting price levels where the prices were both commercially reasonable and nondiscriminatory, notwithstanding the plaintiffs' allegations that the prices were set at a level to try to force them out of business.
