Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In a multi-insurer coverage case, it is common for the insured to settle with one or more insurers before trial. When that happens in a case in which the court employs the “all sums” scope-of-coverage approach, can the non-settling insurers bring claims of their own against the settled carriers in an effort to reallocate some of their liability to their former co-defendants? If not, is there another mechanism to account for those settlements? This article addresses these issues.
As explained below, courts have generally refused to allow non-settling insurers to maintain claims against settled carriers. Instead, courts typically hold that, at most, the non-settling insurers may obtain a set-off or credit based on the prior settlements. When courts have allowed the non-settling insurers to seek a credit for the insured's prior settlements, they have usually employed the “pro tanto” approach, which caps any credit at the amount actually received by the insured in the prior settlements. The leading decisions further refine the analysis so that any credit is limited solely to the amount that the insured received for the specific claim that forms the basis of the judgment against the non-settling insurers.
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.