Insurers' Rights to Recoup Defense Costs
Commercial General Liability ("CGL") policies typically provide two distinct benefits to policyholders: defense against potentially covered claims, and indemnity against covered claims. Because the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify, it is as important, if not more important, than the duty to indemnify. <i>See, e.g., Buss v. Los Angeles Superior Court</i>, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 366, 373, 939 P.2d 766, 773 (1997). Insurers often accept their defense obligations, however, subject to reservation of their rights to assert non-coverage. Now, with increasing frequency, insurers also are demanding reimbursement if it turns out that the liability claim was not covered.
The Leasing Hotline
Highlights of the latest commercial leasing cases from around the country.
In the Spotlight: Exploring the 'Gray' Between Ground and Space Leases
There are frequently varying shades of gray between a true ground lease and a space lease, particularly in retail real estate. The true ground lease is exactly that: a lease of ground — dirt — generally for a long term where the landlord has few, if any, obligations and, in fact, few rights other than to collect a rent stream which can only be interrupted in extremely limited circumstances. A space lease, of course, provides a landlord with varying responsibilities from construction to maintenance, repair, enforcement of other tenant obligations, etc., as well as creating various landlord rights such as use restrictions, radius restrictions, continuous operation provisions, etc. Landlords often get into trouble when they blend concepts from both ground and space leases without carefully considering whether the blend actually works throughout the lease term.
Who Is in the Chain of Liability for OFAC Noncompliance?
By now many of us have either heard or read several articles written about compliance with the Executive Order 13224, titled "Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism" (the "Executive Order"). Although the probability of leasing or selling to any "Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism," is extremely low, the consensus among the real estate bar seems to be that it is better to comply with the Executive Order and protect yourself and your client rather than risk the stiff penalties and stigma that would follow by inadvertently violating it. It is apparent that the creation of a Landlord-Tenant relationship or a conveyance of a property interest would give rise to an obligation to comply with the Executive Order, thereby triggering all of the potential liability associated with violating it.
Features
Terrorism Insurance: A Two-Edged Sword
In the landlord-tenant arena, the issue of whether terrorism insurance must be purchased has two frequently encountered aspects. In one factual pattern, a tenant of a single-user property is required by its lease to purchase certain insurance coverage to protect both its own interest and the landlord's. Does this lease provision include terrorism insurance, as well as other types of coverage generally required on the leased premises? In another factual pattern, tenants of a multi-tenant facility must reimburse the landlord for their share of the landlord's taxes, common area expenses and insurance premiums. Do those insurance premiums properly include the landlord's cost of obtaining terrorism insurance?
Features
Eminent Domain Law
Recent cases of importance to your practice.
Features
Selling the State's Zoning Exemption?
The Court of Appeals recently confronted a significant zoning issue: When, and on what terms, can the state or a state agency transfer to a private entity its exemption from local zoning restrictions? In <i>Matter of Crown Communication New York, Inc. v. Department of Transportation</i> (NYLJ 2/14/05, p. 19, col. 4), a divided court held that telecommunications towers erected on state land were immune from local zoning regulations even when the much of the space on the towers had been leased to private companies. The court's decision, however, raises as many questions as it resolves.
Features
Real Property Law
Rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- The Availability of Self-Help Evictions to Commercial LandlordsA landlord may re-enter leased commercial premises peaceably, without resorting to court process, in those states where it is permitted, if the right to do so is expressly reserved in a commercial lease, either a) upon the tenant's defaulting on the payment of rent or other lease terms, or b) upon termination of the lease or the tenant's abandoning the premises.Read More ›
- Redefining Attorney-Client Collaboration with Technology That Delivers Greater ValueIf savvy law firm attorneys haven't done so yet, they should take this time to adjust their expectations and increase their comfort levels with new technologies, processes, and workflows. Going forward, their clients will expect the emphasis to be on relationships and outcomes, not billable hours.Read More ›
- 'Customary Operations' or A Vacant Building?Many times, courts are faced with the question of whether a loss location is 'vacant' under a commercial property policy when trying to determine if the building owner or lessee is conducting customary operations. This article explores various decisions across the United States as to what is considered 'customary operations,' thereby rendering the property 'vacant.'Read More ›
- Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the RoughThere is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.Read More ›
- Supreme Court Rules Rejection of Trademark License Does Not Rescind Rights of LicenseeMission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC The question is whether a debtor's rejection of its agreement granting a license "terminates rights of the licensee that would survive the licensor's breach under applicable nonbankruptcy law."Read More ›