Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Replacement Cost Insurance and the Issue of Matching
The typical homeowner's property insurance policy 'loss settlement' provision provides that in the event of a covered loss to a dwelling, the insurer will pay the cost to repair or to replace without deduction for depreciation, but not exceeding the lesser of the following three amounts: (a) the limit of liability applicable to the dwelling; (b) the replacement cost of that part of the dwelling damaged (for like construction and use, or equivalent construction and use, or with comparable material and quality for the same use, or using materials of like kind and quality) on the same premises; or (c) the necessary amount actually spent to repair or to replace the damaged dwelling.
Situations may arise in a claim where the damaged building material does not match the undamaged material due to a host of reasons, including age, fading, obsolescence, deterioration, or size. The 'matching' issue typically comes up in determining 'that part of the dwelling damaged' in (b) above or in determining what is a 'necessary amount' spent for repair or replacement in (c) above.
Most insurers seek to avoid arbitrary rules regarding matching of building materials; instead, evaluating each claim individually and taking into consideration differences in color, size, and texture of both damaged and undamaged building materials. Some insurers, however, faced with a demand that all building materials (roofing, siding, flooring, etc.) be replaced when only a part is actually physically damaged have taken the position that they are liable only for 'that part of the dwelling' physically damaged, and that the cost of repair or replacement of more than that is not a 'necessary amount' to meet its policy obligation. On that basis, some insurers have paid the costs related only to the repair or to the replacement of the physically damaged portion and have not included any costs to repair or to replace portions not physically damaged, notwithstanding that the damaged portion cannot be repaired or replaced with materials matching the undamaged portion.
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?