Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
This two-part article provides an overall review of ensuing loss provisions and their application by courts across the United States. In Part One, we discussed, among other things, Specific Exclusions. This month, we continue the discussion about Faulty Workmanship Exclusions.
Faulty Workmanship Exclusions
In Swire Pacific Holdings v. Zurich Insurance Company, 845 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 2003), demolition of non-defective portions of a building was required in order to correct design defects. The court ruled that it was not an ensuing loss, but rather an excluded loss caused by the defective design. Swire owned a high-rise condominium building. Zurich issued a builder's risk policy covering the project. In the course of construction, the City of Miami halted issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy based on numerous design defects and failure to comply with appropriate governmental building codes and ordinances. As a result of the design defects, Swire altered the plans for construction to bring the building into compliance, and incurred about $4.5 million in costs to correct the structural deficiencies. Zurich denied coverage on the ground the claim dealt with the cost of correcting a design defect and there was no physical loss or damage resulting from the defect.
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.
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 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.
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?