Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Hurricane Katrina: The Emerging Jurisprudence
On Aug. 29, 2005, at approximately 6:00 a.m., Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans. Only two hours later, the levees in New Orleans gave way. As the third-strongest hurricane to make landfall in the United States, Hurricane Katrina was responsible for taking more than 1836 lives and causing more than $81.2 billion in damages ' making it the most expensive natural disaster in U.S. history. The hurricane displaced 500,000 families and destroyed 275,000 homes. James A. Knox, Jr., Causation, The Flood Exclusion, and Katrina, 41 Tort Trial & Ins. Prac. L.J. 901, 902 (2006). The insurance industry has paid more than $40 billion in connection with Hurricane Katrina claims. David Dankwa, New Orleans Port Trumpets Insurance Dispute at RIMS, A.M. Best: BestWire, May 2, 2007. The Insurance Services Office estimates 1.6 million claims will be made ' including residential property, commercial property, vehicle, and vessel claims. See Knox, Causation, at 905.
Current reports indicate there are well over 1100 Katrina lawsuits filed against insurance companies. With 1,100 Katrina Lawsuits, Court Schedule Stretches into 2008, Insurance Journal, Oct. 20, 2006. By the end of 2006, there were approximately 70 Katrina decisions handed down in Louisiana, and 50 such decisions rendered in Mississippi. Rhonda Orin, First-Party Coverage for Catastrophic Risks, 758 PLI/Lit 89, 94 (April-May 2007). The early Katrina cases have focused on four interesting coverage issues involving: 1) the enforceability of flood exclusions, 2) the effect of 'anti-concurrent causation' provisions, 3) coverage for 'slab' situations where policyholders' homes have been reduced to the foundation, and 4) coverage for losses caused by flooding due to levee breaches in New Orleans that allegedly occurred due to negligent design and maintenance. Judge LT Senter in the Southern District of Mississippi has played a key role in the emerging Katrina jurisprudence, as the federal Mississippi cases in that district have been assigned to him.
In this article, we discuss five significant Katrina decisions. In Buente v. Allstate, Judge Senter ruled relatively early after the Hurricane that the standard form flood exclusion found in many homeowners' policies was unambiguous and barred coverage for damage due to 'storm surge.' In Leonard v. Nationwide, the first Katrina case tried to conclusion in 2006, Judge Senter held that damage due to wind would be covered whereas damage due to water would not, despite the presence of anti-concurrent causation provisions that aimed to exclude coverage for all damages caused by a combination of covered perils (such as wind) and uncovered perils (such as water). Given the facts of the case, the court concluded that the vast majority of damages were caused by water and were thus not covered.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?