As an advocate for victims of police brutality and their families, Michelle Gross has alternately worked with and needled Minneapolis city officials. During 30 years of activism, Gross has pursued many, if not most, ways for residents to improve police accountability, from designing civilian oversight to compiling hard-to-get complaint data.
Then six years ago she got a different idea: professional liability insurance. Doctors and lawyers carry malpractice insurance. Why not require police officers to purchase coverage and make them, not just the city, pick up the tab in misconduct settlements?
Gross didn’t know it, but she was about to shake the dust off an old idea that had disappeared from practice more than 50 years ago. The idea upsets modern norms, divides policing experts and potentially recalibrates the balance of power between community, police and city government.
“I thought it was flipping brilliant,” Gross said.
At the time, a string of police misconduct suits and six-figure settlements under then-police chief Tim Dolan had grabbed local headlines. Gross saw a chance to attack a two-pronged problem: officer discipline and runaway payouts. “I’m a homeowner and taxpayer, and I don’t like that our city is budgeting for police misconduct,” she said.
Read more: Chicago reporter
Monday, June 27, 2016
Thursday, June 23, 2016
NJ: No Vicarious Liability for Partner Where LLP Lacked Tail Coverage
The requirement for a law firm organized as a limited liability partnership to maintain malpractice insurance does not extend to the period when a firm is winding up operations and has ceased to provide legal services, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The plain language of Rule 1:21-1C ties the insurance mandate to the performance of professional services, and that term doesn't encompass the administrative duties related to a windup, the court ruled in Mortgage Grader v. Ward & Olivo. Affirming an Appellate Division order, the court said a motion judge erred by converting the Summit firm from an LLP to a general partnership for failing to carry malpractice insurance while winding up operations.
As a result of the ruling, Mortgage Grader Inc., which hired the firm's John Olivo in 2009 to address claims of patent infringement, has no vicarious liability claim against the firm's other partner, John Ward, for Olivo's alleged malpractice, the court said. Mortgage Grader, based in Laguna Niguel, California, entered into settlement agreements related to the infringement claims that gave rise to allegations of malpractice. In June 2011, Ward & Olivo dissolved and entered into a windup period while collecting outstanding legal fees and paying taxes.
The firm's claims-made policy ran through Aug. 8, 2011. In October 2012, Mortgage Grader filed a malpractice suit against the firm, Olivo and Ward, alleging malpractice by Olivo in relation to the settlements. Mortgage Grader served an affidavit of merit on Ward & Olivo and Olivo but not on Ward.
Ward moved to dismiss, arguing that he could not be held vicariously liable, and that he had not been served with an affidavit of merit. The judge hearing the motion concluded that the lapse of the firm's malpractice insurance policy relegated the firm to a general partnership and, therefore, Ward could be found vicariously liable. The Appellate Division reversed in 2014, and Mortgage Grader appealed. At the Supreme Court, Mortgage Grader asserted that Olivo's termination of the attorney-client relationship in May 2012, nine months after his firm's malpractice insurance lapsed, dictated that the firm should have purchased so-called tail coverage for the windup period. Ward, for his part, argued that a mandate to purchase tail coverage would require coverage perpetually into the future, since the six-year statute of limitations would not apply to representation of a minor or the drafting of a will.
Under R. 1:21-1C, adopted in 1996, a law firm organized as an LLP must carry at least $100,000 in insurance for each attorney employed, Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina wrote for the court. The rule was intended to protect partners from lawsuits premised on vicarious liability, but common sense and public policy dictate that partners should not be allowed to seek shelter behind the liability shield of an LLP when they have not maintained malpractice insurance, Fernandez-Vina wrote.
Full article: www.njlawjournal.com
The plain language of Rule 1:21-1C ties the insurance mandate to the performance of professional services, and that term doesn't encompass the administrative duties related to a windup, the court ruled in Mortgage Grader v. Ward & Olivo. Affirming an Appellate Division order, the court said a motion judge erred by converting the Summit firm from an LLP to a general partnership for failing to carry malpractice insurance while winding up operations.
As a result of the ruling, Mortgage Grader Inc., which hired the firm's John Olivo in 2009 to address claims of patent infringement, has no vicarious liability claim against the firm's other partner, John Ward, for Olivo's alleged malpractice, the court said. Mortgage Grader, based in Laguna Niguel, California, entered into settlement agreements related to the infringement claims that gave rise to allegations of malpractice. In June 2011, Ward & Olivo dissolved and entered into a windup period while collecting outstanding legal fees and paying taxes.
The firm's claims-made policy ran through Aug. 8, 2011. In October 2012, Mortgage Grader filed a malpractice suit against the firm, Olivo and Ward, alleging malpractice by Olivo in relation to the settlements. Mortgage Grader served an affidavit of merit on Ward & Olivo and Olivo but not on Ward.
Ward moved to dismiss, arguing that he could not be held vicariously liable, and that he had not been served with an affidavit of merit. The judge hearing the motion concluded that the lapse of the firm's malpractice insurance policy relegated the firm to a general partnership and, therefore, Ward could be found vicariously liable. The Appellate Division reversed in 2014, and Mortgage Grader appealed. At the Supreme Court, Mortgage Grader asserted that Olivo's termination of the attorney-client relationship in May 2012, nine months after his firm's malpractice insurance lapsed, dictated that the firm should have purchased so-called tail coverage for the windup period. Ward, for his part, argued that a mandate to purchase tail coverage would require coverage perpetually into the future, since the six-year statute of limitations would not apply to representation of a minor or the drafting of a will.
Under R. 1:21-1C, adopted in 1996, a law firm organized as an LLP must carry at least $100,000 in insurance for each attorney employed, Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina wrote for the court. The rule was intended to protect partners from lawsuits premised on vicarious liability, but common sense and public policy dictate that partners should not be allowed to seek shelter behind the liability shield of an LLP when they have not maintained malpractice insurance, Fernandez-Vina wrote.
Full article: www.njlawjournal.com
Friday, June 17, 2016
5 essentials of a Cyber liability insurance policy
Data breaches pose one of the most pressing and potentially devastating risks to businesses across the globe.
The significant financial and reputational damage resulting from a hack can impact the entire business on an unprecedented scale. The problem is increasingly widespread in our hyper-connected world, and according to the Identity Theft Resource Center, 781 data breaches were recorded in the United States in 2015, the second most active year in the past decade.
These threats continue to grow at an exponential rate, and cybercriminals are becoming increasingly sophisticated in their methods of attack. Now more than ever, it’s imperative that businesses both large and small go on the offensive to safeguard the sensitive information of their employees, partners and customers by taking the proper preventive measures and implementing a comprehensive Cyber liability insurance policy.
The term “Cyber liability” insurance is somewhat of a misnomer because people tend to equate the word “cyber” with a technological hacking event. However, a more appropriate name for the policy would be “privacy liability,” because the scope of coverage includes the loss of private information through almost any process of theft, not just virtual.
While the widely known tactics of hacking, skimming and phishing were the leading causes of data breaches in 2015, nearly 50% of total data breaches last year were the result of employee error, improper disposal of documents, lost equipment and other non-technological failures.
The costs of not securing adequate protection could be devastating to a business. In fact, the Ponemon Institute’s 2015 Cost of Data Breach Study concluded that data breaches on average leave companies on the hook for $3.79 million in damages per incident, but depending on the cause of the data breach, this number can be even higher.
Forensics and legal
Public relations
Notification costs and credit monitoring
Business interruption coverage
Cyber extortion coverage
Read More: www.propertycasualty360.com
The significant financial and reputational damage resulting from a hack can impact the entire business on an unprecedented scale. The problem is increasingly widespread in our hyper-connected world, and according to the Identity Theft Resource Center, 781 data breaches were recorded in the United States in 2015, the second most active year in the past decade.
These threats continue to grow at an exponential rate, and cybercriminals are becoming increasingly sophisticated in their methods of attack. Now more than ever, it’s imperative that businesses both large and small go on the offensive to safeguard the sensitive information of their employees, partners and customers by taking the proper preventive measures and implementing a comprehensive Cyber liability insurance policy.
The term “Cyber liability” insurance is somewhat of a misnomer because people tend to equate the word “cyber” with a technological hacking event. However, a more appropriate name for the policy would be “privacy liability,” because the scope of coverage includes the loss of private information through almost any process of theft, not just virtual.
While the widely known tactics of hacking, skimming and phishing were the leading causes of data breaches in 2015, nearly 50% of total data breaches last year were the result of employee error, improper disposal of documents, lost equipment and other non-technological failures.
The costs of not securing adequate protection could be devastating to a business. In fact, the Ponemon Institute’s 2015 Cost of Data Breach Study concluded that data breaches on average leave companies on the hook for $3.79 million in damages per incident, but depending on the cause of the data breach, this number can be even higher.
Forensics and legal
Public relations
Notification costs and credit monitoring
Business interruption coverage
Cyber extortion coverage
Read More: www.propertycasualty360.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)