Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Occurrence Analysis in First-Party Insurance
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.
Although there is a wide body of case law and commentary recognizing and reinforcing these distinctions under the laws of California, New York and several other jurisdictions, opinions issued in two recent cases arising in Wisconsin have erroneously assumed, without actually examining the issue, that principles applicable in the third-party liability context may be applied without modification to first-party property claims. This article reviews key principles that guide a thoughtful analysis in the first-party context when addressing physical loss or damage that may span multiple policy periods, and the issues that could arise if the first-party/third-party distinction is overlooked in favor of a one-size-fits-all approach.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.
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?
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.