Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Among those courts to have considered the issue of what policies respond in the context of a first-party property claim, the overwhelming majority have recognized that manifestation is the appropriate measure. Under a manifestation theory, the insurer(s) on the risk when the loss is discovered (i.e., “manifests”) is obligated to provide coverage for the entire loss, even though the physical loss or damage may take place in more than one policy period.'
In contrast, a “continuous trigger” theory, which is applied by some courts in third-party liability cases to determine what policies respond, provides that all insurers on the risk from the beginning of the loss to the time it manifests owe coverage. The considerations that sometimes lead courts to apply a continuous trigger in the third-party liability context ' chief among them, the interests of an injured third-party who had no role in negotiating the insurance policy but who may be reliant upon it for appropriate compensation ' simply do not exist in first-party property claims.'
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.