Search

The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act ("TRIA"), 15 USC &sect;6701 <i>et. seq.</i>, designed to make terrorism insurance readily available to property owners, is scheduled to sunset on Dec. 31, 2005. If the Act is not extended and the cost of terrorism insurance becomes prohibitive, lenders and borrowers may once again find themselves embroiled in controversy over the question of whether governing loan documents require such insurance.

Highlights of the latest commercial cases from around the country.

The fourth anniversary of the tragedy in New York has come and gone, and our country remains on alert in an effort to prevent another terrorist attack. While we see frequent warnings published in the news and through industry groups, the heightened awareness those warnings generate does not put our companies in compliance with the laws requiring our participation in the fight against terrorism. This article examines the anti-terrorism laws that affect our industry and outlines best practices for compliance with those laws. It also provides information on enforcement activities that have occurred. It provides a basis for evaluating whether or not your company is in compliance with the anti-terrorism laws.

What do negotiators fear most? Failure, being manipulated and being second-guessed. Why do negotiators fail and why are they manipulated or second-guessed? Often, it's lack of adequate preparation and disregard for the issues, purposes and concerns of the other side. A lack of internal alignment can lead to confusion and that dreaded second-guessing. A well-prepared negotiator can be manipulation proof, avoid the second-guessing and achieve valuable results.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution for business resumption following a disaster. However, the American Society of Safety Engi-neers ("ASSE") offers this disaster safety checklist to assist businesses before, during and after a disaster, such as Hurricane Katrina.

Reinsurance and insurance contracts would be thousands of pages long if they explicitly defined every possible term, however mundane, or if they anticipated every possible contingency, however remote. Fortunately, (or perhaps unfortunately) for the drafters of these contracts, the U.S. legal system typically employs a more streamlined model. That is, parties commit to an agreement with the understanding that courts and other adjudicatory bodies may play a role in filling in contractual "gaps" and giving meaning to indefinite or indeterminate contractual terms. <i>Cf. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Schumacher Elec. Corp.</i>, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 14318 (7th Cir. 2005). Although there are a number of methods by which a court can interpret a contract, the importation of custom and usage evidence plays a special role in illuminating insurance and reinsurance contracts. This article explores whether and when courts will admit such evidence, and it divides into three sections: First, the article explains the rules that courts will employ when they determine whether and when to admit custom and usage evidence; second, it considers the effect of integration clauses on the possible importation of custom and usage evidence; and, third, it provides several practical suggestions for a party seeking to import custom and usage evidence.

Insureds embroiled in litigation with underlying claimants frequently are confronted with demands from their insurers that can place their litigation position at risk. One issue that often arises is whether an insured must and should provide requested privileged materials to its insurer in connection with the insurer's coverage investigation or in coverage litigation. Where the insurer has accepted the insured's defense of litigation and thus its interests appear to be aligned with the insured in a successful resolution of the underlying matter, the insured may have difficulty in refusing to provide certain materials. However, as is often the case, 1) an insurer will reserve rights and then seek all information relevant to the underlying matter, regardless of its privileged status, or 2) deny coverage and seek that information in the context of coverage litigation. Insureds should be aware of possible risks that can be created if they comply with requests for privileged information, and that despite the insurers' claims of a "common interest" or that the privileged information is "at issue," significant case law protects these materials from production.

To outsiders of the legal community, no rule is more familiar than the attorney-client privilege. In simple terms, what a client tells his attorney is supposed to stay between the client and his attorney. It is this covenant of secrecy that prompts some (but certainly not all) clients to be honest and forthcoming with the facts underlying a particular claim. In turn, it allows the attorney to provide the most effective representation to his/her client. Yet, in the world of bad faith claims, courts have proved willing to find that an insurance company has impliedly waived the attorney-client privilege even in cases when the insurer has not argued that it relied upon the advice of counsel in denying the claim. <i>See</i> Steven Plitt, <i>The Elastic Contours of the Attorney-Client Privilege and Waiver in the Context of Insurance Company Bad Faith: There's a Chill in the Air</i>, 34 Seton Hall L. Rev. 513 (2004).

Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.

The MLF 50 ' The Top 50 Law Firms in Marketing and Communications appeared in a special September/October issue of MLF. Here are some of the highlights of that issue, including mention of the top five firms.