Features
Kirk A. Pasich
Insurance carriers frequently argue that when insureds face claims for "disgorgement" or "restitution," they need not defend or indemnify under a wide-range of liability policies. Carriers argue that, at least in California, public policy bars coverage for such claims including claims alleging failure to pay employees overtime, failure to pay taxes and penalties, and, in the intellectual property area, for disgorgement of "ill-gotten gains" or payment of a defendant's profits as a measure of damages. Insurance carriers advance this argument under various policies, including commercial general liability (CGL), directors and officers (D&O), employment practices liability (EPL), and errors and omissions (E&O) policies.
Features
Lynn K. Neuner
In June and July of this year, the New York Court of Appeals and the Second Circuit each rendered a new decision on the proper scope and application of the pollution exclusion under New York law with respect to the duty to defend. In <i>Belt Painting Corp. v. TIG Insurance Co.</i>, 100 N.Y.2d 377 (N.Y. 2003), the New York Court of Appeals held that an absolute pollution exclusion did not unambiguously exclude coverage for a personal injury claim asserting injury based on paint fumes inside an office building. In <i>W.R. Grace & Co. v. Continental Casualty Co.</i>, 332 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2003), the Second Circuit held that New York's historical statutory proscription against the insurance of nonsudden, nonaccidental pollution vitiated a policy provision granting coverage for "gradual pollution." The Second Circuit also confirmed in an important choice-of-law ruling that New York courts will not apply the law of various "site states" to a general liability policy; rather, New York courts will apply the single law of the state with the greatest contacts to the dispute. These cases provide further guidance to practitioners regarding (a) the limited scope of the pollution exclusion under New York law to nonenvironmental type claims, (b) the priority given to New York Insurance Law '46(13)-(14) in the face of conflicting policy provisions, and (c) the growing certainty that New York courts will apply the law of a single state to interpret a policy covering multiple risks in various locations.
Features
Stan Soocher
A Manhattan federal district court decided that the airing of an unlicensed clip from a public access TV show to introduce a segment on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" constituted fair use under copyright law. The "Daily Show" segment at issue opened with a one-second, full-screen shot of the plaintiff ' comedienne/stripper Sandy Kane ' dancing in a bikini. The title of "The Sandy Kane T.V. Show" is visible in the background. The clip is then further shown briefly as part of a video collage. A shorter clip of Sandy Kane's show is used in a commercial promoting "The Daily Show."
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Recently filed cases in entertainment law, straight from the steps of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Stan Soocher
Recent developments in entertainment law.
Stan Soocher
Recent cases in entertainment law.
Features
Stan Soocher
Depending on the circumstances and the law, parties on either side of an entertainment suit may ask a court for an award of attorney fees. Following are court rulings from recent months that deal with this and related concerns. In future issues, <i>Entertainment Law & Finance</i> will report on such relevant rulings in Attorney-Fee Updates.
Features
Jay S. Kenoff
Entertainment attorneys spend a significant part of their time putting deals together and creating agreements reflecting those deals. But these lawyers may occasionally be called on to terminate ' in an amicable fashion ' an agreement that they or someone else has prepared.
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
Daniela Stele
Until recently American manufacturers were not likely to be sued in Europe. Now, however, with legislation enacted by European Union Member States, an American manufacturer may be found strictly liable for a defective product.
