Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Litigation Conduct: Removing the 'Bad Faith' Trap
Pure self-interest seemingly motivates parties in the adversarial system; but insurance presents a twist on that common understanding when it comes to litigation over coverage. That is because courts have held that a coverage action does not terminate certain obligations existing between an insured and its insurer ' even with respect to the particular claim at issue in the coverage dispute. With increasing frequency, aggressive attorneys representing policyholders argue that, despite traditional common law or statutory litigation and settlement privileges and protections, an insurer's conduct during a coverage lawsuit should be scrutinized with the aim of identifying evidence of 'bad faith' that can be used against the insurer.
The law in this area is still developing, but a body of case law is being generated that presents a principled, 'bright-line' rule that distinguishes between an insurer's conduct as a litigant seeking a judicial declaration on coverage and the insurer's conduct purely as an insurer making a coverage decision. These cases recognize that a coverage dispute that is in litigation should not provide a springboard for policyholders to generate 'bad faith' allegations as a litigation strategy. These courts reason that when coverage is in dispute, an insurer has a right to bring or defend against a coverage action. They view evidence of post-litigation conduct as irrelevant or, if not, of limited probative value at best. These courts also recognize that procedural and ethical rules are the proper means to address inappropriate litigation conduct. As a result, insureds are not permitted to use even improper litigation behavior as evidence of 'bad faith.'
Rules-Based Approach: Litigation Conduct Rejected As 'Bad Faith' Evidence
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?