Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In a ruling that affects both insurance and reinsurance companies as well as policy-holders of insolvent insurers subject to the New Jersey's Insurer Liquidation Act, the New Jersey Supreme Court, in a 3-2 decision in a case of first impression, definitively excluded contingent claims that are 'incurred but not reported' from sharing in the distribution of assets of an insolvent insurer.
Features
Policyholder counsel have heralded the recent New York Court of Appeals' decisions in <i>Bi-Economy</i> and <i>Panasia</i> as victories for insureds due to the court's recognition, in certain circumstances, of claims for consequential damages beyond the limits of an insurance policy. However, a close reading of the majority opinions in these cases demonstrates that the Court of Appeals has taken only a tentative step in the direction of allowing claims under New York law for damages beyond policy limits. Based on the analytical construct used by the court to address the policyholders' claims in these cases, insurers have several avenues to challenge the application of these holdings to future cases and may ultimately limit these decisions to the specific facts under which they were decided.
As insurers under D&O policies respond to the claims activity likely to be generated by the subprime mortgage crisis, they should consider whether their policyholders are complying with notice provisions commonly found in 'claims-made' policies dealing with notice of potential claims and the submission of claims outside of the current policy period. This easily overlooked issue has potentially serious consequences for an insurer ' affecting the scope of its coverage obligations and the exposure of its limits. In coverage litigation, courts have often found that policyholders who fail to comply with these 'notice-of-circumstances' clauses are not entitled to coverage.
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
Features
In-house counsel and executives within the railroad, logistics, and transportation industries need to be aware of an increasing likelihood of litigation-related to global warming. In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2007 decision in <i>Massachusetts v. EPA</i>, suits have been filed seeking to impose liability on companies whose activities emit carbon dioxide. As additional suits arise, they will doubtless reach companies in the oil, electric power, auto, and railroad sectors. These developments raise an important question: Are companies in transportation-related fields adequately prepared for the acceleration of climate change-based tort cases that their industry will likely encounter in the near future?
Equipment lenders and lessors face specialized issues when the asset is a vessel. How is the lender secured in its collateral? Can a lessor be secured in a vessel titled in lessor's name? How does a lessor perfect its security interest in the vessel? Where does the lessor stand in relation to competing creditors? This article addresses these questions within the U.S. legal system and describes proposed legislation to expand opportunities for lease financing of vessels.
Features
This is the second installment of a two-part series on the proposed move from a patent system granting priority of patent rights based upon invention dates to a system in which priority is based primarily upon filing dates. The first installment discussed the history behind the current first-to-invent system and the basics of the proposed changes to the system. This installment explores the statutory bars under the proposed legislation and other changes affecting prior art.
Getting information from patents remains a basic task for patent professionals and inventors, but rarely are any tips for reading patents available. Missing some patent detail is not only frustrating, but it can severely impact patenting strategy.
Features
In a recent case, a patent owner claimed to have invented side impact airbag sensing. The patent enabled an embodiment; that was stipulated. In opposition to a motion for summary judgment of invalidity for lack of enablement, the owner asserted that enablement of a preferred embodiment satisfied the enablement requirement of the patent law. It didn't. The case is only one of several consistent cases. You should beware, and consider the matter in both patent prosecution and litigation. If you own a patent, and wish for a broad construction, be careful what you wish for.