Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the landlord-tenant arena, the issue of whether terrorism insurance must be purchased has two frequently encountered aspects. In one factual pattern, a tenant of a single-user property is required by its lease to purchase certain insurance coverage to protect both its own interest and the landlord's. Does this lease provision include terrorism insurance, as well as other types of coverage generally required on the leased premises? In another factual pattern, tenants of a multi-tenant facility must reimburse the landlord for their share of the landlord's taxes, common area expenses and insurance premiums. Do those insurance premiums properly include the landlord's cost of obtaining terrorism insurance?
Leases entered into before 9/11 rarely mentioned the requirement that a tenant or landlord obtain terrorism insurance. Sept. 11 changed many things, including the way attorneys draft insurance clauses in leases. In pre-9/11 lease documents, the requirement for terrorism insurance is typically found in one of two places. The first is the casualty insurance clause. Leases typically require a party to obtain and maintain “all risk” property or casualty insurance. Up until 9/11, all risk insurance included terrorism coverage because there was no exclusion for losses resulting from a terrorist attack. After the tragedy and the losses that occurred in New York and Washington, D.C., insurance carriers began to exclude the terrorism risk from their all risk coverage. The second source of the provision for terrorism coverage is found in the so-called “other insurance” clause. Leases typically provide that the party required to obtain the insurance also obtain such other insurance as the other party may require or elect to obtain.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.