In many instances, an insured does not comply with the terms of every condition stated in a policy. Sometimes this is because the insured is not aware of the particular requirements of the policy, sometimes it is because a carrier has not required (or has waived) compliance, and sometimes it is because it is simply not practical, or possible, to comply with all of the requirements of the conditions. In many of these circumstances, insurance carriers reserve a right to deny coverage, or deny coverage on the ground that an insured has failed to comply with one or more conditions in the policy. However, whether or not an insured has complied with all of the particulars of a condition in a policy does not determine whether the insured actually forfeits coverage under the policy.

Features

For years, insurers have invoked the so-called 'late notice' defense under New York law, with relatively frequent success, to deny insurance coverage to insureds in circumstances in which the insured provides notice that is not timely under New York's traditional 'no prejudice' rule. Under this 'no prejudice' rule, an insurer generally need not show any prejudice suffered by the insurer as a result of an insured's untimely notice of an occurrence or claim giving rise to liability. Insurers have been able to cite certain New York case law stating that, with a few exceptions, an insurer may avoid coverage if the insured's notice was untimely on the theory that notice is a condition precedent to coverage under the policy. <i>See, e.g., Security Mut. Ins. Co. v. Acker-Fitzgerald Corp.</i>, 293 N.E.2d 76, 78 (N.Y. 1972); <i>American Home Assurance Co. v. International Ins. Co.</i>, 684 N.E.2d 14, 16 (N.Y. 1997). This insured-unfavorable rule of law, however, appears to be in the process of changing. Recent New York case law indicates a shift away from a 'no prejudice' rule, and an even more recent proposed state statute would permit an insurer to deny insurance coverage only in circumstances in which the insurer could 'demonstrate that it has suffered material prejudice as a result of the delayed notice.' For these reasons, New York clearly appears to be moving toward the large majority of other states, which require an insurer to demonstrate material prejudice as a predicate to avoiding coverage in the context of the late notice defense.

Features

The latest study on CRM projects (known as the CHAOS Chronicles), conducted in 2006, shows that close to 50% of projects fail, much lower than the over 74% figure that has been circulating for years. This is good news: It means, in part, that many industries are learning to manage CRM as a living entity that changes and grows as an organization does. It also reveals that we are getting wiser about our approach to CRM projects, heeding the advice that the best way to 'eat an elephant' is one piece at a time.

Features

As Director of Technology and Marketing, much of the responsibility of selecting, maintaining and upgrading to the most powerful technology available is mine. My department also helps coordinate the firm's marketing efforts, such as mailings and events. As part of the firm's mission to provide expertise in multiple practice areas, we have come to understand how vital it is to encourage flexibility and mastery of the latest technology among its attorney users. To achieve results efficiently, a firm must have a streamlined approach to stay competitive and run efficiently.

Features

When introducing new technologies or processes, managing the challenge of change requires a clear vision, ongoing two-way communication with the affected stakeholders and an understanding of people's levels of influence and commitment to the change. A law firm's culture can impede the adoption of new processes. When employees are accustomed to performing tasks in a certain way, you are bound to come up against some resistance if the new processes translate into a loss of their routines and comfort levels. Therefore, it is imperative that you get the appropriate people involved early in the planning to make sure they understand the new systems and processes ' and how the changes will affect them and the firm.

Drafting a document between multiple reviewers can get complicated and frustrating when the available tools aren't used properly ' or not at all. The most common tools for document collaboration in Microsoft Word are Track Changes and Comments. These features are often used incompletely or the proper use of them is misunderstood.

Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.

Features

One traditional rule of contract interpretation is to construe contact terms in appropriate circumstances against the drafter, a concept often referred to as <i>contra proferentum</i>. This doctrine sometimes fits uncomfortably with two other views expressed by American courts. On one hand, many decisions say that insurance contracts are interpreted just like any other commercial contract. <i>See, e.g., Sims v. Mulhearn Funeral Home, Inc.</i>, ___ So.2d ___, (La. 2007); <i>Bear River Ins. Co. v. Williams</i>, 153 P.2d 798, 801 (Utah Ct. App. 2006). On the other hand, some decisions say without qualification that insurance contracts should be construed strictly against the insurer. <i>See, e.g., Carter v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co.</i>, ___ A.2d ___ (N.H. 2007); <i>Cinergy Corp. v. Associated Elec. &amp; Gas Ins. Servs., Ltd.</i>, 865 N.E.2d 571, 574 (Ind. 2007). And sometimes a single opinion tries to express both at the same time: 'It is well settled that a <i>contract of insurance is no different from any other contract</i> and must be construed in a fair and reasonable manner, having regard to the risk and subject matter of the policy, and that special rules such as liberal construction in favor of the insured and against the insurer who drew the contract apply.' <i>In re New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.</i>, 833 N.Y.S.2d 182, 183 (App. Div. 2007) (emphasis added).