Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
New York Court of Appeals Upholds 'No Prejudice' Rule
On April 5, 2005, the New York Court of Appeals upheld long-standing New York law that a policyholder's late notice defeats coverage under a commercial liability policy without any specific requirement that an insurer demonstrate prejudice. The court disagreed with any assessment that the “no prejudice” rule was a doctrine whose time had come. It rejected a policyholder's request to apply a prejudice rule to “notice of a suit in commercial policies where the notice was admittedly late.” See Argo Corporation, et al. v. Greater New York Mutual Insurance Co., (N.Y. April 5, 2005). In a separate opinion issued on the same day as Argo, the court did apply a “prejudice” standard in the limited context of supplemental underinsured motorist (“SUM”) coverage where late notice of a SUM claim followed timely notice of the underlying accident. Rekemeyer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., (N.Y. April 5, 2005).
The recent Court of Appeals opinions were especially significant because New York is a worldwide center of finance, including insurance. These decisions maintain clear and consistent jurisprudence in New York regarding the interpretation of commercial contracts. Further, New York, as a financial Mecca and strong adherent to the “no prejudice” rule, had become a target for policyholders seeking to erode that rule. These decisions put to rest any doubt about the direction of New York late notice law.
Collectively, the New York high court's April 5 opinions clarified the “late notice” landscape, which had been muddied by conflicting intermediate appellate court rulings following the Court of Appeals decision 3 years ago in the case of Matter of Brandon v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 97 N.Y.2d 491 (2002). Compare Great Canal Realty Corp., 787 N.Y.S. 2d at 28 (stating that Brandon militates toward moving to a prejudice standard as to initial notice requirements); Rekemeyer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile, 2004 N.Y. Slip. Op. No. 04074, 7 A.D.3d 955, 777 N.Y.S.2d 551 (App. Div. 3rd Dep't 2004) (holding that policyholder's late notice barred coverage for its underinsured motorist benefits claim); Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Jiminez, 777 N.Y.S.2d 204 (App. Div. 2d Dep't 2004) (explaining that whether New York should abandon its long-standing “no prejudice” rule, as advanced by the policyholder, is a matter left to the discretion of the Court of Appeals); Argo Corporation, et al. v. Greater New York Mutual Insurance Co., 1 A.D.3d 264, 767 N.Y.S.2d 577 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 2003) (finding no coverage for failure of policyholder to give timely notice of the underlying action without requiring showing of prejudice finding that Brandon was inapplicable to facts). By decisively affirming that the “no prejudice” rule is alive and well in New York jurisprudence, the Court of Appeals has retained an important level of certainty in contractual relations between insurer and policyholder.
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?