Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- Affordable Care Act (1)
- Command-and-control (1)
- Commerce Clause (1)
- Commerical general liability insurance (1)
- Congress (1)
-
- Construction (1)
- Contractors (1)
- Control (1)
- Defective work (1)
- Forseeability (1)
- Health insurance (1)
- Industries (1)
- Insurance policies (1)
- Insurance policy interpretation (1)
- Mandates (1)
- National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius (1)
- Ohio (1)
- Penalties (1)
- Primary-purpose text (1)
- Regulations (1)
- Relative coerciveness (1)
- Shared Responsibility Payment (1)
- Subcontractors (1)
- Taxing power (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Insurance Law
Defective Construction Cgl Coverage: The Subcontractor Exception, Christian H. Robertson Ii
Defective Construction Cgl Coverage: The Subcontractor Exception, Christian H. Robertson Ii
Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review
In the construction industry, commercial general liability (CGL) insur-ance is the standard policy for managing property damage risks. Histori-cally, CGL policies do not cover an insured’s own defective construction because the insured controls its own work and can reasonably foresee the damage that may result from defective work. But what about the defective work of an insured’s subcontractor? Practical considerations limit an in-sured’s effective control of every aspect of a subcontractor’s work, and this limitation complicates the insured’s ability to foresee future risks. In 1986, the increasing involvement of subcontractors led general contractors to in-sist upon protection from subcontractor work …
Nfib V. Sebelius And The Individual Mandate: Thoughts On The Tax/Regulation Distinction, Kyle D. Logue
Nfib V. Sebelius And The Individual Mandate: Thoughts On The Tax/Regulation Distinction, Kyle D. Logue
Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review
When Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion of the Court in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius (NFIB) explaining the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) minimum essential coverage provision (sometimes referred to as the individual mandate), he reasoned that the mandate—or, more precisely, the enforcement provision that accompanied the mandate (the Shared Responsibility Payment or SRP)—could be understood as a tax on the failure to purchase health insurance. According to this view, the enactment of the mandate and its accompanying enforcement provisions fell within Congress’s virtually unlimited power to “lay and collect taxes.” This tax-based interpretation …