Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A Primer on the Pollution Exclusion in New York and the Duty to Defend
In June and July of this year, the New York Court of Appeals and the Second Circuit each rendered a new decision on the proper scope and application of the pollution exclusion under New York law with respect to the duty to defend. In Belt Painting Corp. v. TIG Insurance Co., 100 N.Y.2d 377 (N.Y. 2003), the New York Court of Appeals held that an absolute pollution exclusion did not unambiguously exclude coverage for a personal injury claim asserting injury based on paint fumes inside an office building. In W.R. Grace & Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 332 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2003), the Second Circuit held that New York's historical statutory proscription against the insurance of nonsudden, nonaccidental pollution vitiated a policy provision granting coverage for “gradual pollution.” The Second Circuit also confirmed in an important choice-of-law ruling that New York courts will not apply the law of various “site states” to a general liability policy; rather, New York courts will apply the single law of the state with the greatest contacts to the dispute. These cases provide further guidance to practitioners regarding (a) the limited scope of the pollution exclusion under New York law to nonenvironmental type claims, (b) the priority given to New York Insurance Law '46(13)-(14) in the face of conflicting policy provisions, and (c) the growing certainty that New York courts will apply the law of a single state to interpret a policy covering multiple risks in various locations.
Belt Painting Corp.
In Belt Painting, the insured was a painting subcontractor sued by an individual alleging that he was injured as a result of inhaling paint or solvent fumes in an office building where the policyholder was performing stripping and painting work. The insured submitted the claim to its general liability insurer, which denied coverage based on the application of the policy's absolute pollution exclusion. The provision excluded coverage for “`Bodily injury' or 'property damage' which would not have occurred in whole or part but for the actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of pollutants at any time.” The policy defined “pollutants” as “any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acid, alkalis, chemicals and waste.”
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?