This article explores the boundaries of the follow-the-fortunes doctrine. Does it have any limits? Does a cedent have carte blanche to impose its claims decisions and allocations of claims settlements upon a reinsurer without question? Do the answers to the questions depend upon whether the dispute is before a court or an arbitration panel?
An insurer has a duty to defend a claim that is arguably within the policy's coverage. While some courts look solely to the complaint to determine the existence of a duty to defend, other courts consider extrinsic facts. This article discusses the parameters of the duty to defend, and identifies the evidence to be considered in analyzing that duty.
A federal judge in Newark, NJ, has approved a $69 million settlement in a class action accusing leading insurance brokers of conspiring with carriers to manipulate the market.
In a blow for insurers and contrary to the weight of authority in multiple other juridictions, the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District recently reversed the trial court on its so-called "no stacking rule" and affirmed the trial court in its "all sums" liability allocation.
Managing partners of law firms should ensure that there is an appropriate structure of internal controls in place at their firms to protect their firms and clients against fraud. With the economy in a recession, cases of employee fraud are on the rise, and in many instances better controls and more oversight are needed.
Who's doing what; who's going where.
Several recent decisions have pointed toward a sinking standard for proving inequitable conduct, which has created an atmosphere of uncertainty about the proper scope of the inequitable conduct defense. The Federal Circuit's recent opinion on the subject, Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., appears to be an attempt to right the ship by reiterating the standards for proving inequitable conduct that were established more than 20 years ago.
The Patent Reform Act of 2007 may soon be recycled as The Patent Reform Act of 2009 and reintroduced in the new Congress. Should this reform become the law, it is likely that inventors will still invent. The author's fear, however, is that without strong patent law, investors will no longer want to invest in unprotected ideas.
The Federal Circuit's October 2008 decision in In re Bilski created uncertain implications for biotechnology regarding the applicable standard for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101. In its recent one-paragraph opinion in Classen Immunotherapies v. Biogen IDEC, the Federal Circuit left many issues unexplained, but it did make one thing clear: The Bilski standard, now being applied in the area of biomedical technology, poses a significant threat to the viability of patents claiming diagnostic methods.
As a result of two watershed cases, a Board that fails in its duty of oversight of intangible assets now places individual directors at risk for personal liability.
