Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Insuring for Punitive Damages Doesn't Violate Public Policy
In an opinion that could be one of Texas' most important insurance coverage rulings in years and spark even more debate about damage awards, the 2nd Court of Appeals ruled that insuring for punitive damages does not violate public policy.
The Fort Worth court's 2-1 opinion in Westchester Fire Insurance Co. v. Admiral Insurance Co. involves a complicated dispute between two insurance companies over which one should cover the excess costs of a settlement in a nursing home neglect case, Cagle, et al. v. PeopleCare. In Cagle, the nursing home agreed to settle the case, paying about $2 million in actual and $2 million in punitive damages.
Westchester, an excess insurer for PeopleCare, appealed to the 2nd Court of Appeals challenging the trial court's partial summary judgment ruling that limits the amount of money Westchester can recover from Admiral, the nursing home's primary insurer. The court agreed with Westchester, reversing the trial court's decision.
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?