Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Right to Associate in the Defense
Many excess insurance policies provide insurers with the right, but not the obligation, to associate with the insured and/or its underlying insurers in the defense and control of the underlying lawsuit. This “right to associate” permits the insurer to work with the insured to investigate, defend, or settle a claim. Such partnerships protect the insurer and can prove beneficial to the insured's underlying case and ultimate exposure.
The “right to associate” clause, typically found in the cooperation section of the insurance policy, usually provides in form or substance:
(1) The Company shall not be called upon to assume charge of the settlement or defense of any Claim made or suit brought or proceeding instituted against an Insured, but the Company shall have the right and shall be given the opportunity to associate with the Insured or the Insured's underlying insurers or both in the defense and control of any Claim, suit or proceeding relative to any Occurrence where the Claim or suit involves, or appears reasonably likely to involve, the Company, in which event the Insured and the Company shall cooperate in all things in the defense of such claim.
(2) The Insured shall furnish promptly all information reasonably requested by the Company with respect to any Occurrence, both with respect to any Claim against the Insured and pertaining to coverage under this Policy.
'
(4) Those expenses incurred by the Company on its own behalf in connection with claims representation pursuant to this Condition D shall be at its own expense and shall not be part of Ultimate Net Loss.
In the remainder of this article, we examine how courts recognize and enforce the right to associate, and what remedies are available where the insured fails to cooperate in the insurers' right to associate. Although this article focuses on New York law, there is little case law on this subject, and foreign courts are likely to be in accord with New York precedent.
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.
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.
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.
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?