Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Consent-to-assignment clauses are integral features of most commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies because they eliminate the potential burden of unknown parties seeking insurance coverage for liability that an insurer did not foresee or intend to cover. Pursuant to these clauses, an insured cannot assign its interest in insurance benefits to another party without the insurer's consent. Given their salutary purposes, California courts have historically upheld the validity of these consent-to-assignment clauses in CGL policies, even in situations where the event giving rise to liability occurred prior to the putative assignment. However, the California Supreme Court recently reversed course and overturned one of its earlier decisions, rejecting consent-to-assignment clauses as a bar to coverage where the loss at issue pre-dates the assignment.
This article: 1) provides an overview of consent-to-assignment clauses in CGL policies; 2) discusses the California Supreme Court's decision in Henkel; and 3) examines the California Supreme Court decision in Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court and its impact on the enforceability of consent-to-assignment clauses.
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.