Insurance Law Commons^™

Bear Child V. Siyeh Development, Inc., 2004 Ca 15 (Blkft. Tr. Ct., Dec. 3, 2004), Blackfeet Tribal Court

Court Decisions

Bear Child, a member of the Blackfeet Tribe, was injured in a fall at one of the Tribe’s casino/bingo halls. Bear Child filed a personal injury suit against the Tribe, the Siyeh corporation which runs the casino/bingo hall, and First Americans Insurance, Siyeh’s insurer. The defendants moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of sovereign immunity. Siyeh argued that it is a department of the Tribe, entitling it to sovereign immunity. The Trial Court was unpersuaded by the defendants’ arguments for sovereign immunity. The Court held that the Tribe was acting in its corporate, not governmental capacity in relation …

Insurance, Stephen M. Schatz, Stephen L. Cotter, Bradley S. Wolff

Mercer Law Review

Across the board, courts strictly applied insurance contracts as they were written. Typical of this survey year, insureds went zero for five in attempts to escape from their responsibility to read their policies. Public policy arguments did not seem to work. At the end of the survey year, the Georgia Court of Appeals further clarified the application of coverages in complex areas of insurance for "advertising injury" and "construction defects."

American Insurance Association V. Garamendi And Executive Preemption In Foreign Affairs, Brannon P. Denning, Michael D. Ramsey

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Strict Liability For Gatekeepers: A Reply To Professor Coffee, Frank Partnoy

University of San Diego Law and Economics Research Paper Series

This article responds to a proposal by Professor John C. Coffee, Jr. for a modified form of strict liability for gatekeepers. Professor Coffee’s proposal would convert gatekeepers into insurers, but cap their insurance obligations based on a multiple of the highest annual revenues the gatekeepers recently had received from their wrongdoing clients. My proposal, advanced in 2001, would allow gatekeepers to contract for a percentage of issuer damages, after settlement or judgment, subject to a legislatively-imposed floor. This article compares the proposals and concludes that a contractual system based on a percentage of the issuer’s liability would be preferable to …

The Disloyalty Of Stock And Stock Option Compensation,, Calvin H. Johnson

Connecticut Insurance Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Dynamic Federalism: Competition, Cooperation And Securities Enforcement, Renee M. Jones

Connecticut Insurance Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Pro-Rating Defense Costs To An Insured For Periods Of Uninsurance; What Happened To The Duty To Defend: Security Insurance Co. Of Hartford V. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., Elizabeth Festa

Connecticut Insurance Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Case Against Dog Breed Discrimination By Homeowners' Insurance Companies, Larry Cunningham

Connecticut Insurance Law Journal

No abstract provided.

A Model Financial Statement Insurance Act, Lawrence A. Cunningham

Connecticut Insurance Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Toxic Mold In Texas: Will Recent Insurance Reforms Clean It Up For Good, Jessica Seger

Connecticut Insurance Law Journal

No abstract provided.

From The Journals: Insurance Law Abstracts, Matthew Fitzsimmons

Connecticut Insurance Law Journal

No abstract provided.

West Virginia's Seemingly Eternal Struggle For Fiscally And Environmentally Adequate Coal Mining Reclamation Bonding Program, Craig B. Giffin

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court's Limitation Of Managed-Care Liability, Wendy K. Mariner

Faculty Scholarship

This article summarizes and critiques the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, which limited managed care organizations' liability for negligent decisions about the care of patients in private employer-sponsored health plans governed by ERISA. It contrasts the Court's dichotomous view of health benefit plans, in which insurers administer contracts and treating physicians make medical judgments, with the more complicated relationships that affect decisions about both coverage and treatment.

First Things First: Federal Courts Should Determine The Legal Status Of Lloyd's Of London Syndicate Before Deciding The Syndicate's Citizenship For Diversity Purposes, John M. Brust

Washington Law Review

Lloyd's of London provides a marketplace where groups of underwriters form syndicates to insure risk. The United States Circuit Courts of Appeals have split on the question of how to determine whether a federal court has diversity jurisdiction over a controversy involving Lloyd's syndicates. In a diversity action, each party must have diverse citizenship from all opposing parties. Circuit courts disagree about which diversity of citizenship test applies to suits involving Lloyd's syndicates. The Second, Third, and Sixth Circuits have applied the real party in interest test. This test looks only to the citizenship of the parties that have a …

Choosing Gatekeepers: The Financial Statement Insurance Alternative To Auditor Liabilty, Lawrence A. Cunningham

ExpressO

Positioned in a lively current debate concerning how to design auditor incentives to optimize financial statement auditing, this Article presents the more ambitious financial statement insurance alternative. This breaks from the existing securities regulation framework to draw directly on insurance markets and law. Based on upon an evaluation of major structural and policy-related features of the concept, the assessment prescribes a framework to permit companies, on an experimental-basis and with investor approval, to use financial statement insurance as an optional alternative to the existing model of financial statement auditing backed by auditor liability.

The financial statement insurance concept, pioneered by …

Known Unknowns: The Delusion Of Terrorism Insurance, Michelle Boardman

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Giving Pharmaceutical Manufacturers A Pill To Swallow: Why North Carolina Should Provide Discount Prescription Drugs To Non-Elderly Uninsured Citizens, Vaddrick Q. Parker

North Carolina Central Law Review

No abstract provided.

God And The Red Umbrella: The Place Of Values In The Creation Of Institutions Of Mutual Assistance, Brian J. Glenn

Connecticut Insurance Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Fear Is The Key: A Behavioral Guide To Underwriting Cycles, Sean M. Fitzpatrick

Connecticut Insurance Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Legal Standing Of An Insurance Insolvency Receiver: When The Shoe Doesn't Fit, Karl L. Rubinstein

Connecticut Insurance Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Traveling Outside The Insurance Contract; The Problems With Maximizing Victim Compensation: Koikos V. Travelers Insurance Company, Sharon Abidor

Connecticut Insurance Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Swimming In The Wake Of Dehoyos: When Federal Courts Sail Into Disparate Impact Waters, Will State Regulation Of Insurance Remain Above The Waves, William Goddard

Connecticut Insurance Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Next Step For Brownfields: Government Reinsurance Of Environmental Cleanup Policies, Daniel A. Schenck

Connecticut Insurance Law Journal

No abstract provided.

From The Journals: Insurance Law Abstracts, Sarah Sia

Connecticut Insurance Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Indemnity, Liability, Insolvency, David Gray Carlson

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

In Defense Of Paid Family Leave, Gillian Lester

ExpressO

In this article I defend state provision of paid family leave. Such a program would allow workers to take compensated time off work to care for a newborn infant or ill family member. I normatively ground my claim in the argument that paid leave would allow women, who have historically performed a disproportionate share of family caregiving labor, to participate more fully in the paid workforce. This enhancement in labor force participation, I argue, would in turn increase women's independence and capacity to determine the conditions of their lives. In taking this position, I distinguish myself from those who would …

Pslra, Slusa, And Variable Annuities: Overlooked Side Effects Of A Potent Legislative Medicine, Michael J. Borden

Mercer Law Review

This Article highlights a harmful and far-reaching unintended consequence of two major pieces of securities litigation reform legislation1 that were passed as part of the Republican party's Contract with America in the mid-1990s. These reforms were justified, in part, on the grounds that they would benefit investors by improving disclosure of financial information by corporations. However, for many aggrieved investors, the effect of the legislation was just the opposite. Because of inadequate and misleading disclosures made by life insurance companies and their registered representatives, consumers were induced to purchase inappropriate investments carrying excessive fees that reduced the value of their …

American Insurance Association V. Garamendi And Executive Preemption In Foreign Affairs, Brannon P. Denning, Michael D. Ramsey

University of San Diego Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series

In American Insurance Association v. Garamendi, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated California's Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act (HVIRA), which required insurance companies doing business in California to disclose all policies they or their affiliates sold in Europe between 1920 and 1945. According to the Court, the state's law unconstitutionally interfered with the foreign affairs power of the national government. The decision was easily overlooked in a Term filled with landmark cases dealing with affirmative action and sexual privacy. What coverage the case did receive emphasized its federalism aspects, and excited little reaction because the result seemed intuitively appropriate given the …

Drawing The Lines More Brightly: The Minnesota Supreme Court Clarifies Past Insurance Coverage Precedent, Robert P. Thavis

William Mitchell Law Review

This article reports on two cases decided by the Minnesota Supreme Court during its 2003-04 term. The first is a major insurance coverage “trigger-and-allocation” case; the second is a tax case with implications for insurance coverage of electronic property.

The Foggy Road For Evaluating Punitive Damages: Lifting The Haze From The Bmw/State Farm Guideposts, Steven L. Chanenson, John Y. Gotanda

Working Paper Series

In light of increasing punitive damages awards, the United States Supreme Court formulated criteria for evaluating whether a punitive damages award is so unreasonably large that it violates substantive due process. Unfortunately, these "guideposts," which were first erected in BMW v. Gore and applied last term in State Farm v. Campbell, are difficult to use and have resulted in inconsistent decisions. Indeed, Justice Scalia stated that they "mark a road to nowhere." The authors argue that the problems with the guideposts can be fixed by refining the third guidepost, which compares the punitive damages award to the criminal (or civil) …