Pamela G. Michiels | Phelps Dunbar Professional liability policies, almost always written on a claims-made basis, typically contain a number of options for the insured to obtain an Extended Reporting Period (ERP). What does that mean? And why might it be necessary, or at least a good idea? While many variations on the ERP exist, the… Continue reading “Tail Coverage” – Understanding The Extended Reporting Period
Month: October 2021
Change to the Statute of Limitations for Construction Defect Cases – How It Affects You
Samantha Carmickle and John Holper | Winthrop & Weinstine Under Minnesota Statutes § 541.051, an action arising out of the construction or improvement of real property must be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues.[1] But when does the cause of action accrue? The Minnesota Supreme Court answered this question on February 3,… Continue reading Change to the Statute of Limitations for Construction Defect Cases – How It Affects You
Caution To Contractors – How Your Subcontractor’s Defective Work Can Cost You In The Eleventh Circuit
Hannah-Kate Gosch | Freeman Mathis & Gary Are general contractors covered when the cost of repairing or removing a subcontractor’s defective work results in the loss of use of the tangible property which is not itself physically damaged? The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently addressed this issue in Tricon Development of… Continue reading Caution To Contractors – How Your Subcontractor’s Defective Work Can Cost You In The Eleventh Circuit
To Skip Or Not To Skip The Opening Statement In Mediation
Peter S. French | Taft Stettinius & Hollister More often than not, lawyers opt out of opening statements in mediation for a variety of reasons. Common rationales include: opening statements will only heighten emotions and negatively impact negotiations; the parties already know the key issues and mediation time is better spent on negotiating settlement terms;… Continue reading To Skip Or Not To Skip The Opening Statement In Mediation
Court Reminds Insurer that the Mere Possibility Of Coverage at the Time of Tender Triggers a Duty to Defend in a Defect Action
Jatin Patel | Newmeyer Dillion It has long been the law in California that an insurer’s duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and that the mere possibility of coverage triggers a duty to defend. Nevertheless, insurers still periodically ignore this clear principle and attempt to narrow the scope of the duty… Continue reading Court Reminds Insurer that the Mere Possibility Of Coverage at the Time of Tender Triggers a Duty to Defend in a Defect Action