Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
PA Court Refuses to Expand Scope of Third-Party Bad Faith Liability
Traditionally, courts have found bad faith in two contexts ' when an insurer wrongfully denies coverage in a first-party claim and when an insurer's improper refusal to settle a third-party claim results in an excess verdict against the insured. Courts have recognized bad faith causes of action under these circumstances in light of the type of policy involved and the nature of the insured's interests that are at stake.
Under a first-party policy, an insured seeks coverage for damage or loss to the insured's own property. When an insurer denies coverage for that loss, the denial has a direct pecuniary effect on the insured. The interest of an insured seeking protection from a third party's claim under a liability policy, however, is more tenuous. So long as the insurer resolves the claim for an amount within the insurer's policy limits, its decision of whether to settle, when, or for how much, typically does not impact the insured. Of course, if the insurer's refusal to settle results in an excess verdict, the insured is exposed directly to pecuniary harm because the insured becomes legally obligated to pay those amounts beyond the policy's limits.
But what if an insured claims that the insurer's litigation and settlement conduct and decision-making has harmed it even though the insurer ultimately settles a claim within policy limits? Can there be a bad faith cause of action based solely on the insurer's behavior during settlement? Would the answer change if the insured claims that it lost business opportunities or suffered damage to its reputation because the insurer delayed settling the claim? The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently confronted these issues in Fuss Builders-Contractors, Inc. v. Assurance Co. of Am., 2006 WL 2372226 (E.D. Pa., 2006), and according to that court, the answer to both questions is no.
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?