Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Negligence Standard Applies, Says Judge
In a significant victory for plaintiffs, a federal judge has ruled that a negligence standard applies in 'excess verdict bad faith' suits against insurance companies whose refusal to settle a claim results in a verdict in excess of the policy limits.
The ruling in Schubert v. American Independent Insurance Co. is a victory for attorneys Joseph F. Roda and Eric L. Keepers of Roda & Nast in Lancaster, PA. Their client is the bankruptcy trustee for a man who was hit with a $2.6 million verdict in an auto accident case after his insurer rejected an offer to settle for $15,000. Early in the case, Roda and Keepers asked Senior U.S. District Judge Clarence C. Newcomer for a ruling on the standard of care in excess verdict bad faith cases. In their brief, the plaintiff's lawyers argued that while the concept of filing such suits has been recognized for nearly half a century, the state and federal courts 'have not always been consistent' in describing the standard to be applied. Nonetheless, they said, a clear theme emerged from the case law that pointed to a simple answer: negligence.
In some cases, they said, the insurer's duty is described as an obligation to act 'in good faith and with due care.' Other cases say the insurer is liable if it 'negligently investigates the claim or unreasonably refuses an offer of settlement.' A later case said the insurer's decision not to settle a claim must be 'intelligent and objective.' Roda and Keepers urged Newcomer to read the same simple message in all of the cases ' that plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages equal to the amount of the judgment entered against them if a jury finds that the insurer acted negligently in failing to settle the claim within policy limits.
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?