Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Real Property Law

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Review and analysis of several key cases.

Features

Landlord & Tenant

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Two important cases for your review.

Features

Eminent Domain Law

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

A recent important case.

Cooperatives & Condominiums

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

In-depth analysis of the latest cases.

Features

Index

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Everything contained in this issue, in an easy-to-use format.

Features

New York Zoning, and the Variance and Rezoning Process

Juan D. Reyes III

Evaluating the potential for a variance or a rezoning must be done on a case-by-case basis. All of the issues pertaining to the site must be considered to determine if a rezoning or a variance is appropriate for the project. Such factors as whether there is a unique condition on the site for a variance are important. For a rezoning, facts such as if there is a strong residential character around an unused manufacturing site would make for a strong case. Other factors such as the political dynamic and the details of preparing the application must be taken into account as well.

Features

Contractual Risk Transfer: Your Policy or Mine?

Sherilyn Pastor

Companies involved in collaborative undertakings frequently confront risk sharing and transfer issues. After they identify a project's hazards, they then decide who will bear what risk, in what way, and in what amounts. They also need to consider whether either party (or both) will maintain insurance for the other's benefit. When negotiating a contractual risk transfer agreement, the parties need to understand their bargaining position and relevant contract and insurance principles. They need to be cognizant of risk transfer limitations. They need to consider if the risk transfer will be supported by insurance, and if so, the scope of coverage required and their willingness to share it in the event of a loss. The companies also need to put in place measures to assure compliance with their contract. This article examines these matters and offers practice pointers for those confronting contractual risk transfer decisions.

Products-Completed Operations Clauses: S.T. Hudson Engineers, Inc. et al. v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Company

Alfred J. Kuffler, John J. Levy & Stacy Alison Fols

In a case of first impression, New Jersey's Appellate Division recently explored the relationship between three clauses commonly contained in policies issued to professionals, in this case a professional engineering firm: 1) the exclusion for professional services contained in a commercial general liability ('CGL') policy, 2) the affirmative grant of products-completed operations coverage in that same CGL policy, and 3) the corresponding exclusion of products-completed operations coverage in an architect/engineer's professional indemnity policy. <i>See S.T. Hudson Engineers, Inc. et al. v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Company,</i> 388 N.J. Super. 592, 909 A.2d 1156 (App. Div. 2006), <i>certif. denied,</i> 189 N.J. 647, 917 A.2d 787 (2007).

Green Issues in Commercial Office Leases

Elizabeth L. Cooper & Frank Mobilio

The first part of this series focused on the credits involved with a lease for office space where the client wants to pursue LEED CI Certification and addressed the LEED CI credits one needs to be aware of, by category, with a discussion of the intent behind each credit. The conclusion discusses the questions that should be asked of the tenant and landlord.

The Leasing Hotline

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Highlights of the latest commercial leasing cases from around the country.

Need Help?

  1. Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
  2. Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Surveys in Patent Infringement Litigation: The Next Frontier
    Most experienced intellectual property attorneys understand the significant role surveys play in trademark infringement and other Lanham Act cases, but relatively few are likely to have considered the use of such research in patent infringement matters. That could soon change in light of the recent admission of a survey into evidence in <i>Applera Corporation, et al. v. MJ Research, Inc., et al.</i>, No. 3:98cv1201 (D. Conn. Aug. 26, 2005). The survey evidence, which showed that 96% of the defendant's customers used its products to perform a patented process, was admitted as evidence in support of a claim of inducement to infringe. The court admitted the survey into evidence over various objections by the defendant, who had argued that the inducement claim could not be proven without the survey.
    Read More ›
  • In the Spotlight
    On May 9, 2003, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts announced that Bayer Corporation, the pharmaceutical manufacturer, had been sentenced and ordered to pay a criminal fine of $5,590,800 stemming from its earlier plea of guilty to violating the Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act by failing to list with the FDA its drug product, Cipro, that was privately labeled for an HMO. Such listing is required under the federal Food, Drug &amp; Cosmetic Act. The Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act, Pub. L. 100-293, enacted on April 22, 1988, as modified on August 26, 1992 by the Prescription Drug Amendments (PDA) Pub. L. 102-353, 106 Stat. 941, amended sections 301, 303, 503, and 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. '' 331, 333, 353, 381, to establish requirements for distributing prescription drug samples.
    Read More ›