Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
An Analysis of the World Trade Center 'Two Occurrences' Decision
On Dec. 6, 2004, a New York federal jury determined that the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center involved two “occurrences” under policies issued to leaseholder Larry Silverstein. As a result, Silverstein could get up to $1.1 billion more than if the attacks had constituted a single occurrence.
The litigation originally involved 22 insurers. However, the obligations of 13 insurers were determined to be governed by a “WilProp” form that had specific language defining an “occurrence.” The WilProp form defined “occurrence” to mean:
All losses or damages that are attributable directly or indirectly to one cause or to one series of similar causes. All such losses will be added together and the total amount of such losses will be treated as one occurrence irrespective of the period of time or area over which such losses occur. World Trade Center Properties, LLC v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 345 F.3d 154, 160 (2d Cir. 2003).
The Second Circuit concluded that “no finder of fact could reasonably fail to find that the intentional crashes into the WTC of two hijacked airplanes sixteen minutes apart as a result of a single, coordinated plan of attack was, at least, a 'series of similar causes.' Accordingly, we agree … that under the WilProp definition, the events of September 11th, constitute a single occurrence as a matter of law.” Id.
However, a different result was reached as to the remaining insurers. Silverstein contended that the governing terms were those terms in effect with Travelers, the primary insurer, whose policies did not contain a definition of “occurrence.” Those insurers also sought summary judgment.
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?