|
Exposures Faced By Directors, Officers, Trustees and Others in Privately-Held and Not-For-Profit Organizations: Risk and Insurance Solutions
By Joseph P. Monteleone, Esq. of Rivkin Radler LLP
This is the second in a series of three articles.
In the First Article we explored the exposures faced by directors and officers of privately held companies. In this article, we will turn our attention to the not-for-profit arena. Lastly, we will examine the insurance solutions to these exposures, particularly through D&O insurance.
The IRS will not flag, identify or otherwise note a SSN that may be subject to identity theft and subsequent tax fraud. Go figure.
By Melissa Ventrone, Esq. of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Nearly every day there's another news story about another company suffering a data breach, either as a result of a lost or stolen device or because the company was hacked. Talk to any number of knowledgeable attorneys skilled in handling breaches, and each will guide you through a similar process for providing notice, obtaining credit monitoring or identity restoration, and complying with regulatory and other legal obligations. Yet no matter the recommendations, the antiquated processes in place at the IRS make it practically impossible for companies to protect someone from a fraudulently filed tax return.
Insurer's Conduct When No Bad Faith Is Pleaded
By Robert E. Smith, Esq. of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin.
In what has commonly become known as the Koken decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Pennsylvania Insurance Department "does not possess the authority to require mandatory binding arbitration for UM and UIM disputes." Prior to Koken, captioned as Insurance Federation of PA v. Department of Insurance, 585 Pa. 630, 889 A2d. 550 (2005), uninsured and underinsured claims were usually arbitrated before three person panels with very limited appellate rights. Now, most of these claims are being litigated and many procedural and evidentiary issues are working their way through the courts.
New York's Highest Court Knocks Out Four Late-Disclaimer Rulings With One Decision
By Michael L. Zigelman, Esq. and Eric B. Stern, Esq. of KDV LLP
On June 10, 2014, New York's Highest Court reinforced New York's long-standing rule that the timely disclaimer requirements of Insurance Law 3420(d) were only applicable in cases involving bodily injury and death. Remarkably, in issuing its decision, the Court of Appeals both reversed the lower court decision and abrogated three other contrary lower court decisions. In KeySpan Gas East Corp. v. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04113 (2104) the Court of Appeals reversed a First Department decision which had erroneously imposed on insurers a duty to disclaim coverage for property damage claims "as soon as possible" or risk waiver of the insurers' coverage defenses.
Recently, a New York law firm made news when it announced that it would begin accepting Bitcoin as payment. The firm will partner with a Bitcoin payment processing company who will host the firm's payment system and assist the firm in converting digital currency payments into fiat currency. Other professionals are taking notice, and are permitting clients to pay for legal services using Bitcoin. Should you?
|
