Showing 1 - 10 of 74
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected the Bellefonte Rule, which reinsurers relied upon to cap liability under certificates of facultative reinsurance for indemnity and expense.
It is a frequent situation. A contractor obtains a liability policy from an insurer. Down the road, a construction defect claim is asserted, and suit is brought against the contractor. By this point the contractor is no longer in business, with no known valid address, and all reasonable efforts at service of process on the contractor fail. The claimant then moves for substituted service on the contractor’s insurer. Even if the insurer files an objection to the motion for substituted service, the court may focus only on the diligence of the claimant’s efforts to serve the contractor and grant the motion. The insurer is now in the lawsuit.
All claims must be analyzed before a district court can exercise its discretion to dismiss a Federal Declaratory Judgment action in the Eleventh Circuit
Federal courts generally have a “virtually unflagging obligation” to exercise the jurisdiction that Congress has conferred to them. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). But the Declaratory Judgment Act is different. It provides that in “a case of actual controversy … any court of the United States … may declare the rights and legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration.”
Insurers and consumers alike are seeing the emergence of cryptocurrency in their daily lives. As increasing numbers of companies worldwide begin using bitcoin and other digital assets for a host of investment, operational, and transactional purposes, it raises an important question: How is cryptocurrency defined for the purposes of insurance coverage?
Insurance coverage attorneys often face challenges when seeking to enforce policy exclusions on their clients’ behalf. To that end, New York appellate courts have ruled on certain policy exclusions so often that their enforcement is akin to legal doctrine; yet, some exclusions remain virtually untouched by the higher courts, leaving the respective lawyers for policyholders and insurers alike to battle ardently over the meaning of what are otherwise clear, plain terms.
New Jersey’s Appellate Division reaffirmed the protections afforded by the Charitable Immunity Act where plaintiff could not prove gross negligence
On December 29, 2021, the New Jersey Appellate Division in Bass v. House of Prayer Cogic of Orange, issued an opinion reinforcing the protections afforded to organizations that qualify for immunity under New Jersey’s Charitable Immunity Act.
Dram shop actions: The importance of knowing the jurisdiction’s rules on permitting common-law negligence claims
A significant number of dram shop complaints include allegations of common law negligence in addition to the allegations of the liquor liability under the jurisdiction’s relevant statute.
On 29 June 2021, a popular Mexican influencer and youtuber known as YosStop (Josseline Hoffman) was arrested after Ainara Suarez filed an accusation against her for producing, storing and publicizing a video showing the gang rape that Suarez suffered at a party in May 2018, when she was 16 years old.
Our global liability and defence group brief, Navigating the global liability defence agenda, was created with our clients in mind. With our legal footprint spanning across 24 countries, our lawyers have first-hand knowledge of global issues impacting our clients. We wanted to provide a snapshot of interesting legal issues we are seeing and share some takeaways we expect will resonate cross jurisdictionally.
The consequences of being even 1% liable when two or more defendants are at fault – the doctrine of joint and several liability
Many defendants who get sued for causing or contributing to an accident in the United States hold the false belief that their exposure is limited to their own percentage of responsibility. However, they often learn, much to their surprise, that despite their seemingly nominal responsibility for the accident, they are liable for the full amount of the judgment pursuant to the doctrine of “joint and several liability.”