Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
'Consent to Assignment' Clauses
Last month, in Part One of this article (http://bit.ly/1RTe4Cs), we discussed the fact that most insurance policies contain anti-assignment provisions, purporting to prohibit the assignment of interests in the policy without the insurer's consent. Insurers rarely offer their consent to assignments. Thus, whether a policy's anti-assignment clause will void a transfer of insurance proceeds or coverage rights, by contract or operation of law, usually requires an analysis of whether the predecessor corporation is an insured under the policy; whether the predecessor corporation still exists; whether the successor corporation succeeded to the predecessor's liabilities and insurance assets by operation of law; whether the coverage rights or policies were transferred by agreement; and, whether the claim for which the successor seeks coverage constitutes a “chose in action” at the time of the transfer.
Most jurisdictions that have considered these matters agree that, after a loss, an insurance policy's consent-to-assignment clause is unenforceable. In fact, California, which had until recently been in the minority on this issue, now has corrected course with its holding in Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court, 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 498 (Cal. 2015), which we discussed last month. Let's take a look at how California's Flour holding compares with those in similar scenarios nationwide.
The Holding Is Consistent
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.
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.
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?