Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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. & 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).
Features
The 2005 hurricane season, including the devastation wreaked by Hurricane Katrina, caused estimated losses of $75 billion. The insured property damage from the five major hurricanes in 2005 reached $52.7 billion. Hurricane Katrina alone caused more property loss than had occurred in the entire prior year, posting $27.3 billion. <i>See http://insurancenews net.com/article.asp?a=top_news&id=73930</i>. In light of these unprecedented losses, a record number of lawsuits have been filed stemming from damage caused by the 2005 storms. Predictably, an equally high number of class action suits have been filed, purportedly on behalf of those affected by the storms. Despite this flurry of class action suits, the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and its state counterparts clearly limit the use of class action suits to very specific, enumerated circumstances that simply do not include first-party insurance disputes, widespread property damage claims, or claims for bad faith and/or unfair trade practices in the adjustment of insurance claims, even where the damage was due to a common weather event.
Choosing the jurisdiction and applicable law for disputes arising out of an insurance or reinsurance contract may be secondary to sorting out the actual terms of coverage, but the importance of the choice should not be underestimated. A good lesson in the different approaches of even mainstream insurance jurisdictions can be had by looking at the experience of the insurers embroiled in the film finance saga, which has kept banks, insurers, reinsurers, and the courts worldwide busy for the last seven years.
They may lament that they are the poor cousins of hedge fund managers and private equity stakeholders, but law firm partners are hardly suffering.
In March, <i>The American Lawyer</i> ran a cover story about a prestigious national law firm that found itself mired in legal and ethical problems even as it enjoyed unparalleled growth and economic success. The article asks: Are the firm's great strengths — enterprise, speed, and daring — also its great flaw?
With all of the reporting capabilities of sophisticated time and billing systems, it is easy to lose sight of the most basic rule of law firm economics: Cash in must exceed cash out. To that end, one of the most valuable assets any business can have is a cash cow. Yet, we find that many law firms never benefit from practices that could be cash cows because they just don't seem to understand the concept. I know, it sounds pretty simple ' bleed as much revenue as you can out of practice areas in which your firm has a dominant position. But, somehow, we keep screwing it up.
It is a well-reported fact within the legal industry that law school enrollments have flattened in recent years, with total J.D. enrollments showing little or no growth since 2004. This trend, in combination with the significant and ongoing growth in the size of law firms, translates into an intensely competitive market for top law school talent. With only a few exceptions, firms throughout the industry are struggling to secure as many of the best candidates as they need and want. The widening gap between law firms' investments in campus recruiting and the resulting payoff in terms of candidate acceptances is driving law firms to take a harder look at their approach and strategy in law school recruiting. And the smartest of these firms are asking the hardest of questions: What is the best way to approach law school recruiting?