Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Federal government attorneys recently unsuccessfully attempted to convince a Federal District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to rewrite the terms of the Federal Tort Claims Act ('FTCA') to allow the creation of a reversionary trust rather than give a lump-sum award to pay for a medical malpractice plaintiff's future medical expenses.
Features
New Jersey's year-old Civil Union Act has failed so far to convey to registered same-sex couples the rights and privileges of marriage, a state commission reported on Feb. 18.
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
Three decisions ' <i>Fortis Benefits v. Cantu,</i>; <i>Mid-Continent Insurance Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.,</i>; and <i>Excess Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Frank's Crew & Rental Tools, Inc.</i> ' appear to reflect the Texas Supreme Court's view that courts applying Texas law should not read more into policies than what is expressly included. And, if there is an agreement apart from the insurance contract, the Texas Supreme Court will look for it to be in writing.
An Illinois appellate court recently held that a subcontractor's insurer wrongfully rejected a general contractor's tender of defense for a suit filed by the subcontractor's employee. <i>State Automobile Mut. Ins. Co. v. Habitat Constr. Co.</i>
A captive is a privately held insurance company, and it can be a subsidiary of the insured business. It issues policies, collects premiums and pays claims, just like a commercial insurer; however, it does not offer insurance to the public. Developing and initiating a captive program may not be suitable for all companies, but by employing the tactics outlined in this article, you can make the decision that best suits your company's needs.
The law is clear in many jurisdictions that insureds typically are entitled to discover information about reserves. <i>Lipton v. Superior Court</i> is one of the leading cases.
Features
In December 2007, Lucent Technologies Inc. secured a non-prosecution agreement from the Department of Justice and settled an enforcement action with the SEC for conduct related to travel and entertainment expenses incurred on behalf of Chinese government officials and for the manner in which these expenses were booked. The Lucent settlement adds to a number of existing guideposts regarding permissible interactions with foreign officials under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This article examines the Lucent settlement, prior FCPA enforcement activity related to travel and lodging, and offers some practical advice for compliance counsel.