Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Coverage disputes may become more complicated when multiple co-insureds or claimants assert rights to coverage under the same finite set of policy limits. For instance, some policyholders have argued that when co-insureds are seeking coverage under the same policy, the insurer must reserve a portion of the available policy limits for each insured so as to ratably distribute the available funds ' even while presently pending claims remain outstanding against one of those insureds. If this were correct, however, the insurer would be placed in an untenable position. If the insurer is required to forego the reasonable settlement of presently pending claims in order to preserve shared limits for co-insureds, the insured facing outstanding claims could argue that the insurer violated its good faith duty to settle on its behalf when the opportunity arose. On the other hand, other co-insureds might later argue that the insurer violated the duty of good faith by failing to preserve adequate limits for future claims ' leaving the insurer in what is essentially a no-win situation.
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
Features
In complex coverage cases involving 'long-tail' claims (such as asbestos bodily injury claims or property damage claims related to environmental pollution), decades of insurance policies can be put at issue. In many states, the policyholder's losses will be spread across the years in which the injury or property damage occurred on a proportionate basis, typically referred to as 'time on the risk' or pro rata allocation. <i>E.g., Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.</i>, 826 A.2d 107, 116 (Conn. 2003); <i>Sharon Steel Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.</i>, 931 P.2d 127, 141 (Utah 1997); <i>Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc.</i>, 633 F.2d 1212, 1224-25 (6th Cir. 1980).
Features
On the morning of 9/11, the Federal Aviation Administration reacted to the unfolding national disaster by issuing a 'ground stop order' of all aircraft departures regardless of destination. This ground stop order was lifted on Sept. 14, 2001. Due to the events of 9/11, numerous policyholders sought coverage under first-party property policies for coverage of their business interruption losses related to operations at the country's airports. The policyholders claimed that the ground stop order or other governmental orders closed the airports and gave rise to coverage under their policies' Civil Authority provision. Based on varying policy language, insurers resisted these claims on several grounds, including that 1) the ground stop order did not bar access to the airports, 2) the ground stop order was not issued due to property damage, and 3) the ground stop order was not issued due to damage to the insured's property or to adjacent property.
Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
Features
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
Under current U.S. Small Business Administration ('SBA') regulations, franchisees and licensees are not, by virtue of their contractual franchise and license agreements alone, ineligible to bid on small business set-aside procurement contracts or to apply for SBA loans. Although franchise or license relationships do not make franchisees or licensees automatically ineligible, they are cause for affiliation scrutiny by the SBA or protesting bidders if a franchisee or licensee is the successful bidder on a procurement or is an applicant for an SBA loan.
The following is a summary of key issues addressed by Paul Reeve and Jonathan Solish in a session about electronic discovery that they led at the 2006 International Franchise Association Legal Symposium in Washington, DC. The summary was prepared by the authors of the presentation.