Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Employers Liability Coverage: Exploring Coverage for Employee Tort Claims Alleging That Injury Was 'Substantially Certain'
When an employee is injured on the job, the claim is usually handled through the Workers' Compensation system. Indeed, it is relatively rare for a worker, even one who has been seriously injured, to sue his or her employer in tort because of the 'exclusive remedy' feature of most Workers' Compensation Acts. That feature, also known as the 'Workers' Compensation bar,' directs all such claims to the compensation system unless an enumerated exception applies. Nonetheless, because there are such exceptions, employers frequently purchase 'Workers' Compensation/Employers Liability' ('WC/EL') policies, which provide insurance not only for claims brought through Workers' Compensation but also for claims brought in the civil court system.
This article addresses a recurring issue under the Employers Liability coverage of WC/EL policies, namely, whether the insurer is obligated to defend and, if necessary, indemnify the policyholder/employer when an injured employee (or the estate of an employee killed on the job) sues the employer alleging that the exclusive remedy provision does not apply because the employer acted knowing that injury to the employee was 'substantially certain.' The issue has been litigated for years, and was addressed anew as recently as early December, when the New Jersey Supreme Court handed down unanimous decisions in two cases, Charles Beseler Co. v. O'Gorman & Young, Inc., No. A-75-05, 2006 N.J. LEXIS 1658 (Dec. 4, 2006), and New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co. v. Delta Plastics Corp., No. A-87-05, 2006 N.J. LEXIS 1659 (Dec. 4, 2006). The weight of authority (including the recent New Jersey Supreme Court decisions) and the better reasoning favor a finding of coverage.
The Liability Regime and the Insurance Policy Exclusion
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?