Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
For insurance attorneys and carriers alike, the decision to disclaim coverage is an invitation to enter delicate and uncertain legal territory, situated firmly between a rock and a hard place. On one side of the scale lies the potential contractual obligation to defend or indemnify the insured. On the other is the prudency of avoiding coverage obligations that were never bargained for. The crux of this dilemma arises from the insurer's heightened duty of good faith.
Implicitly written into every insurance contact by operation of law is the obligation to investigate claims with the utmost honestly and sincerity. This obligation runs deep, as reflected by the fact that unlike a typical contract, a showing that an insurer breached its contractual duty of good faith does not always necessarily require a showing of any malice or ill will. Rather, simple proof that the insurer violated its fiduciary obligations to its insured may often be sufficient to make a bad-faith claim. In that regard, nearly every jurisdiction has affixed a “fairly debatable” standard of proof to insurance bad-faith claims.
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.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.