Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued an amended decision, Docket No. 10-56422, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20887, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20889, 2012 WL 4748679, (9th Cir. Cal. Oct. 5, 2012), to retract Du v. Allstate Ins. Co. et al., 681 F.3d 1118, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11755, 2012 WL 2086584 (9th Cir. Cal. 2012), in which the court opined that, under California law, an insurer has a duty to promptly effectuate settlement when liability of its insured is reasonably clear, even absent a settlement demand by the claimant. The amended decision, filed on Oct. 5, 2012, supplanted the prior decision, issued on June 11, 2012, to limit the holding to the issue of whether a foundation existed for the jury instruction sought by Du with regard to bad faith and the insurer's settlement obligation. The Insurance Coverage Law Bulletin reported on the prior decision in September.
Joon Hak Kim (“Kim”), an insured of Allstate subsidiary Deerbrook Insurance Company (“Deerbrook”), caused a collision that injured appellant Yang Fang Du (“Du”). Kim's policy with Deerbrook had liability limits of $100,000/$300,000. Deerbrook attempted to obtain medical documentation for the next year, and notwithstanding a lack of cooperation by Du and Kim, accepted Kim's liability. Deerbrook eventually made several attempts to achieve a global settlement (Du's lawyer made a $300,000 global settlement demand for all four injured parties, but Deerbrook advised that there was insufficient information to settle; Deerbrook later tried to settle just Du's claim by offering $100,000, which was rejected). Du then filed a lawsuit against Kim and obtained a $4.1 million judgment. Kim then assigned his claim to Du, and Du brought suit against Deerbrook alleging bad faith and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
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.