The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issued its much anticipated decision, <i>Rhodes v. AIG Domestic Claims, Inc.</i>, clarifying the scope of damages when an insurer is found to have willfully or knowingly committed an unfair settlement practice in violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act (M.G.L. c. 93A, ' 9).
The Washington Court of Appeals in <i>National Surety Corp. v. Immunex Corp.</i>, got it right when it determined that an insurer has no "right" of reimbursement.
Although the spousal privilege may be invoked even in cases where the charge involves child abuse ' so long as the child in question is not the child of the spouse whose testimony the defendant wants precluded ' there are sometimes ways to get around this.
Matrimonial attorneys should be aware that the value of an individual's interest in a hedge fund is often greater than just the value of his or her capital account. And that's not all.
The international mobility of spouses and the increase in binational couples (sometimes with each spouse having dual citizenship) has heightened the jurisdictional questions at stake during a divorce.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.
