Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
New York law has traditionally been more faithful than that of many jurisdictions to the principle that an insurance contract, like any other, is “to be construed according to the sense and meaning” of its terms and, if those terms are clear and unambiguous, they are to be “taken and understood in their plain, ordinary, and proper sense.” Preston v. Aetna Insurance Co., 193 N.Y. 142 (1908).
As the New York Court of Appeals once more colorfully put it, “Unless we are prepared to adopt the theory of the cynic that language was invented for the purpose of concealing thought, we have no right to disregard the clear provisions which defendant inserted in the policy and which plaintiff accepted.” Johnson v. Travelers Insurance Co., 269 N.Y. 401 (1936). This respect for the written word in the contract of insurance has resulted in New York's rule that an insured which breaches a policy condition is barred from recovery in the same manner as any other contracting party which breaches
a condition of a contract, without any attendant requirement that the insurer demonstrate prejudice as a result of the breach. As succinctly stated by Justice Cardozo, “When the condition was broken, the policy was at an end[.]” Coleman v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 247 N.Y. 271, 277 (1928).
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.