Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Allocating Costs to Policyholders for Periods of No Insurance
Last month, we discussed the fact that the “unavailability exception” originated with Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. United Insurance Co., 650 A.2d 974 (N.J. 1994), one of the first state supreme court decisions to adopt pro rata allocation. In Olin Corp. v. Insurance Company of North America, 221 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2000), an environmental coverage case, the policyholder argued that coverage became “unavailable” after the point at which it could no longer obtain comprehensive general liability insurance without a pollution exclusion, and further, that it did not subjectively “elect” to be self-insured during those periods. According to the court, however, the evidence demonstrated that a “new type of insurance” became available “to fill the void created by the unavailability of CGL policies without pollution exclusion clauses” during the periods at issue, i.e. , claims-made environmental impairment liability (EIL) insurance, and the policyhlder failed to purchase it. The discussion continues herein.
Court Rejects Policyholder's Argument
Based on that evidence, the court rejected the policyholder's arguments, and held the unavailability exception inapplicable to preclude allocation to the policyholder for the uninsured periods. The court determined, in essence, that neither the type of available insurance, nor the policyholder's reasons for failing to obtain it, were relevant to the inquiry; rather, “the general availability of insurance that would have covered the risk at issue here and Olin's failure to obtain it were all that was necessary to allocate the uninsured years to Olin. There was no need to analyze whether Olin subjectively elected to forego insurance and self-insure.” Id. at 326.
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.
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.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?