Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Aggregate Limits: Addressing Arguments Advanced by Policyholders in Asbestos Claims
Now entering its third decade, asbestos exposures threaten the financial stability of numerous commercial entities. Asbestos manufacturers, distributors and installers have been forced to declare bankruptcy because of these exposures. RAND Institute for Civil Justice, “Asbestos Litigation in the U.S.A.: A New Look at an Old Issue” (Aug. 2001). Even companies with only a peripheral connection to asbestos ' eg, car manufacturers that used asbestos-lined brakes ' have been sued. Asbestos claimants continue to aggressively pursue any entity that had any involvement with asbestos. Indeed, the backlog of asbestos suits in the federal and state courts doubled from about 100,000 in 1990 to 200,000 in 1999. Asbestos Compensation Act of 2000, H.R. Rep. No. 106-782, at 18 (2000). Quite simply, absent federal legislative relief, asbestos cases will continue to clog U.S. courts. Moreover, asbestos litigation has and will continue to bog down a large segment of the U.S. economy. Studies are now projecting that asbestos lawsuits will continue until at least 2030.
The costs associated with asbestos pose staggering exposures for their insurers as well. Many insurers have increased reserves to respond to their potential asbestos liabilities. Several insurers ' including Home Insurance Company, Reliance Insurance Company and Frontier Insurance Company ' have been forced to declare insolvency because of such exposures. Nevertheless, policyholders are increasingly looking to their insurers to fund their asbestos-related liabilities.
Recently, policyholders have begun to pursue a novel argument in the attempt to shift the liability arising out of their use of asbestos-containing materials to their insurers. Specifically, many policies issued by insurers in the 1960s and 1970s included aggregate limits of liability for products hazards and completed operations, but did not include aggregate limits for other types of exposures. To avoid the application of aggregate policy limits, some policyholders seek to characterize asbestos-related claims against them as exposures that do not involve products/completed operations hazards. Most frequently, this argument is made when the policyholder is an asbestos installer or insulator.
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.
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.
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
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?