Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Retrospective Premium Policies: What Happens in Bankruptcy?
Retrospective premium policies allow premiums to be adjusted over time and thereby reflect the loss experience of the policyholder. When a policyholder files for bankruptcy, the existence of retrospective policies raises unique issues. First, is the insurer relieved from liability where the policyholder has failed to pay retrospective premiums? Second, how is an insurer's claim for retrospective premiums classified in the bankruptcy process? This article surveys the prevailing law on these issues.
Background
Retrospective premium policies originated as a way for insurers to shift some risk to policyholders and thereby reduce costs. Generally, under such policies, the insurer charges an initial estimated premium at the beginning of each policy period, called the “deposit premium” or “standard premium.” Six months to a year after the policy expires and annually thereafter, the insurer recalculates the premium based upon the actual claims experience of the policyholder. If the policyholder has few claims, its premiums will be low (and may result in a refund); if there have been many claims, the premiums will be high. By setting premiums retroactively, based upon the policyholder's actual loss experience, insurers can charge less up front. Retrospective premiums have been most commonly used in fields where neither the insurer nor the policyholder is able to accurately predict risks, such as comprehensive general liability and worker's compensation. See generally, Mark G. Ledwin, The Treatment of Retrospectively Rated Insurance Policies in Bankruptcy, 16 Bank. Dev. J. 11 (1999).
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.
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?
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.