Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Understanding the Distinct Purpose and Meaning of First-Party Insurance
Like all contracts, insurance agreements are drafted and entered into in order to carry forward the intentions of the parties. Because parties negotiate first-party property insurance to protect interests that differ fundamentally from those covered by third-party liability insurance, third-party precedent is of limited ' if any ' relevance and utility in interpreting first-party insurance agreements.
Courts broadly recognize the distinct purpose and meaning of first-party insurance. See, e.g., Great Northern Ins. Co. v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., 708 N.E.2d 167, 170-71 (N.Y. 1999) (“[W]holly different interests are protected by first-party coverage and third-party coverage.”); Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 770 P.2d 704 (Cal. 1989). At its core, first-party insurance protects insureds against physical loss or damage from external perils ' eg, fire, flood, windstorm, intentional acts ' to their own property. Many commercial first-party contracts also indemnify a business for the loss of profits directly resulting from this insured physical loss or damage. The coverage afforded by this and any similar endorsement or extension is based on the same fundamental first-party principles as underlie the core physical loss insurance. In each case, the first-party insured bears the impact and receives any indemnity that is due.
In contrast, third-party insurance protects insureds from the consequences of their own unintentional conduct damaging the property of others or causing injury to them. The third party bears the impact and receives any indemnity that is due. Most third-party contracts also provide that the insurer will defend or pay expenses incurred to defend the insured against a suit for damages.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?