Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
PA Supreme Court Rules on Assignments
Policyholders frequently seek to decrease liability to underlying claimants by assigning their insurance policy rights to the claimants. Typically, a policyholder will assign its rights under its liability policy to the underlying claimant in exchange for a covenant not to execute on any judgment against the policyholder. Under the assignment, the underlying claimant receives the same rights that the policyholder had against its insurer. This strategy may be particularly attractive to the policyholder if an insurer has denied coverage or reserved its right to deny coverage ' thus leaving the policyholder faced with a potentially uninsured exposure. While policyholders have successfully used this strategy to protect themselves from uninsured exposures, it is not free from complication. This article briefly discusses some of the significant issues to be considered, a number of which recently were addressed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Egger v. Gulf Ins. Co., 903 A.2d 1219 (Pa. 2006).
Anti-Assignment Clauses
Insurers commonly argue that assignments of insurance policy rights are not valid under the 'anti-assignment' provisions that typically are contained in liability insurance policies. One such variant of such a clause reads:
Assignment of interest under this Policy shall not bind the Company unless and until its consent is endorsed hereon ' Miller's Standard Insurance Policies Anno-tated, Vol. 1 (1973).
Although anti-assignment clauses are valid as a general proposition, see 3 Couch on Insurance ' 35:5 (2006), the insurer's success in relying on such clauses as a prohibition to assignment of policy rights generally depends, in most jurisdictions, upon whether the assignment is made prior to, or after, an insurable event ' usually an 'occurrence' or 'loss' as defined in the policy. If the assignment is made after the occurrence or loss has taken place, then a policyholder typically can assign its policy rights relating to the occurrence or loss without voiding coverage under the anti-assignment clause. As explained by a leading insurance law commentator:
[T]he great weight of authority supports the rule that general stipulations in policies prohibiting assignments thereof except with the consent of the insurer apply to assignments before loss only, and do not prevent an assignment after loss[.]
16 Couch On Insurance 2d ' 63:40 (1996); see also Appleman, 6B Insurance Law And Practice ' 4269 (1995) ('[A]fter a loss has occurred and rights under the policy have accrued, an assignment may be made without the consent of the insurer, even though the policy prohibits assignment. Under such circumstances, the assignment of a right under the policy is not regarded as a transfer of the policy itself, but rather of a chose in action.'); Eugene R. Anderson & Joshua Gold, Assignment Of Insurance Claims By Policyholders To Underlying Claimants, 557 PLI/Lit 687, 696-97 (January, 1997) ('[S]hould the assignment be made after the loss or occurrence has taken place, then the non-assignment clause is typically deemed unenforceable.').
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.