Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Recent Rulings Expand the Scope of the Employment-Related Exclusionary Clause
In December of last year, the Indiana Court of Appeals expanded the scope of employment-related exclusions when it granted summary judgment in favor of Peerless Indemnity Insurance Company (“Peerless”) in a coverage dispute with Justin Stimson, a named partner in the now defunct law firm of Moshe & Stimson, LLP. Peerless Indem. Ins. Co. v. Moshe & Stimson LLP, 22 N.E.3d 882, 2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 642 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). The other named partner, Sarah Moshe, is Mr. Stimson's sister. In December 2011, Moshe informed Stimson that she planned to leave the firm. Thereafter, the relationship between the siblings soured, and Stimson allegedly refused to dissolve the partnership and/or pay his sister monies owed to her by the firm, including her regular income. Additionally, Moshe claims Stimson began making accusations about her “personal integrity and professional competency.”
In early 2012, Moshe filed a lawsuit against her brother, claiming defamation and seeking a formal dissolution of Moshe & Stimson and an accounting, injunction and damages. Stimson sought coverage from Peerless, the law firm's insurer. Peerless sought a declaratory judgment that it had no responsibility to defend or indemnify Stimson based upon the employment-related exclusionary clause (the “Employment Exclusion”) in the Moshe & Stimson policy which read as follows:
This insurance does not apply to:
1. “Bodily injury” or “personal and advertising injury” to
a. A person arising out of any:
(1) Refusal to employ that person;
(2) Termination of that person's employment; or
(3) Employment-related practices, policies, acts or omissions, such as coercion, demotion, evaluation, reassignment, discipline, defamation, harassment, humiliation or discrimination directed at that person . . . .
* * * *
2. This exclusion applies:
a. Whether the insured may be liable as an employer or in any other capacity; and
b. To any obligation to share damages with or repay someone else who must pay damages because of the injury.
It is interesting to compare this language with the common employer's liability exclusion, which excludes coverage for liability for injury to “an 'employee' of the insured arising out of and in the course of ' employment by the insured.” This language expressly requires the claimant be an employee of the insured, whereas the Employment Exclusion in the Stimson & Moshe policy requires only that the act(s) complained of be somehow related to claimant's employment.
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?