Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Self-Insurance Obligations Under NJ Law: Forecasting the Future of Benjamin Moore
The NJ Supreme Court has recently elected to hear appeals in two coverage actions involving the same basic issue ' namely, reconciling the application of the Owens-Illinois “continuous trigger theory” with the application of specific policy provisions under New Jersey law. In the first of these two cases, Spaulding Composites Company, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety, the court strongly affirmed the viability of the continuous trigger theory, invalidating a clear and unambiguous non-cumulation clause that it found conflicted with this approach. Spaulding Composites Company, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety, 176 N.J. 25, 46 (2003). In the second case, Benjamin Moore & Company v. Aetna Casualty & Surety, which is pending, the court must now determine how to apply the continuous trigger theory to self-insurance features contained in a series of unambiguous policy endorsements which do not appear to conflict with a continuous trigger. No. A-4423-01T2F, 2003 WL 1904383 (App. Div., Jan. 14, 2003), appeal granted, 176 N.J. 70 (2003). Specifically, the court must consider whether the continuous trigger theory should be applied to deductibles in the same one-occurrence-per-year manner that it is applied to losses. The trial court and Appellate Division in Benjamin Moore have both concluded that the continuous trigger theory is properly applied to the calculation of deductibles. At this point, it is uncertain how the Supreme Court will resolve this issue, but the court may well have tipped its hand with the Spaulding decision.
Spaulding
The Spaulding case involves the application of the Owens-Illinois continuous trigger theory to a potentially conflicting policy provision that purports to prevent the “cumulation” of multiple policy limits with respect to a “single occurrence.”
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?