|
| 09.14.07 | BUSS Stop: A Policy Language Based Analysis
Connecticut Insurance Law Journal
Angela R. Elbert
Abstract: Insurers and policyholders have been waging a state-by-state battle over whether there exists a right of recoupment of defense costs in commercial general liability policies. Largely guided by a desire to avoid what it viewed as possible unjust enrichment in an extreme set of facts in which only one of twenty-seven claims against an insured was potentially covered, the California Supreme Court recognized this right a decade ago in Buss v. Superior Court. Buss held that a liability insurer can agree to defend an action against its insured while reserving a right to recoup the defense costs the insurer pays if some or all of the case is later held to be outside of policy coverage. For a time, courts considering the issue readily jumped on the Buss. More recently, however, a so-called "minority" view is taking hold that rejects this right of recoupment. This article explores some of the reasons why there is no such right of recoupment, including language in the policy itself. Neal Gerber Eisenberg partner and Litigation Practice Group member Angela R. Elbert co-authored this article that appears in the Vol. 13, No. 1, 2006-2007 edition of the Connecticut Insurance Law Journal. |
|
| 09.07.07 | Amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act Pave the Way for Complainants to Sue Employers in State Court
Chad W. Moeller
Abstract: On January 1, 2008, amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act will take effect. The amendments will pave the way for aggrieved employees to file suit in state court, and will allow employees to avoid having to muddle through cumbersome litigation before the Illinois Human Rights Commission. |
|
| 09.06.07 | New Rules Governing the Filing of Patent Applications Released by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Thomas C. McDonough, James P. Muraff, Michael G. Kelber
Abstract: On August 21, 2007, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) released new rules governing the filing of patent applications. These new rules may have a major impact on pending applications in your portfolio, as well as your strategy for filing new applications. The proposed rules will go into effect on November 1, 2007, but there are steps that should be taken now for pending applications and new filings. This article is intended to briefly summarize these rules and the steps to take. |
|
| 09.01.07 | Technology and the Modern Workplace: You Should Be Aware of New Liabilities Related to Workplace Technology
Professional Roofing
Jason C. Kim, Victoria L. Donati
Abstract: During the past decade, the typical workplace has witnessed technological advances that are nothing short of astonishing. The days of bulky, noisy typewriters are long gone, and most workplaces now are equipped with sophisticated computers and electronic hardware and software. Neal Gerber Eisenberg Labor & Employment Practice Group partner Jason C. Kim, co-authored this article for the September 2007 issue of Professional Roofing magazine.
|
|
| 08.28.07 | Changes to the Law Regarding Attorney Opinions and Willful Infringement
Robert E. Browne
Abstract: On August 20, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the special court which hears appeals in patent matters, issued a unanimous opinion by all members of the Court in the case of In Re: Seagate Technology, LLC. In this opinion, the court specifically overruled the case of Underwater Devices, Inc. v. Morrison Knudson Co., decided almost 25 years ago, and significantly narrowed the scope of a waiver of the attorney-client and work product protections that result when an accused patent infringer asserts an advice of counsel defense to a charge of willful infringement. The court also substantially increased the requirements for an accused infringer to be found to be a “willful” infringer. |
|
