Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Over the last 2 years, there has been an explosion in lawsuits by owners of residential and commercial properties seeking compensation for the cost of remediating mold-related damage. Mold has become the new 'tort du jour' in the construction industry. With the rise in mold claims, homeowners and owners of commercial property have scurried to review their first-party property insurance policies to determine whether they are insured for such damage.
In anticipation of the expected flurry of first-party insurance claims and lawsuits regarding coverage for mold damage, there have been numerous articles written about whether such claims are covered. These articles have attempted to predict how the courts will rule on such claims, much like handicapping an election or a sporting event. But of course ' as in an election or a sporting event ' the real question is not who should win but who actually is winning.
A pitched battle is currently being waged in the courts between first-party property insurers and policyholders over whether the cost of remediating mold damage is covered by first-party insurance policies. This article is a report from the front lines of the battle. A baker's dozen first-party mold cases have been decided to date by the courts. Both insurers and policyholders can claim significant victories in these early decisions. Neither side, however, has been able to find a legal doctrine or policy provision that has enabled it to deliver a knockout blow. The battle rages on.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?