Add Your Photos and Video to This Story

Sue and labour clauses

by aelusive | November 1, 2008 at 01:00 pm

112 views | 0 Recommendations | add comment

Here is an article from leading expert and Orange County Accident Lawyer Todd Picker:

Sue and labour clauses are made so as to provide the insured with an incentive to mitigate any loss or damage to the property insured under the policy in question.... The actual purpose of this clause is twofold: to bind the insured 10 take steps to prevent a loss for which the insurer would be liable if it occurred and when a loss does occur to take steps to reduce the actual amount of the loss. The history of the clause was explained by the California Supreme Court as follows:

The "sue and labor" clause appearing in most marine and inland marine insurance policies is of ancient lineage, its forebears extending back-according to a leading case on the subject-at least into the seven­teenth century.  Such a clause makes express the duty implied in law on the part of the insured to labor for the recovery and restitution of dfu'11aged or detained property and it contemplates a correlative duty of reimbursement separate from and supplementary to the basic insurance contract. "Its purpose is to encourage and bind the assured to take steps to pre­vent a threatened loss for which the Underwriter would be liable if it occurred, and when a loss does occur to take steps to reduce the amount of the loss. Under this particularclause the assured recovers the whole of the sue and labor expense which he has incurred ... and without regard to the amount of the loss or whether there has been a loss or whether there is salvage, and even though the underwriter may have paid a total loss.  If reside in Orange County and require a leading Orange County Accident Lawyer then I suggest Todd Picker, a leading accident lawyer for Orange County.

The Y2K problem originates in the software or coding used to operate computer systems. In add­ition, the consequences flowing from the failure to correct the problem were well known long before remediation costs were incurred. The ques­tion therefore arises as to whether potential losses related to Y2K failures are fortuitous and whether the policyholders' remediation costs are incurred to prevent damage to covered property arising out of a covered loss.

 

Comments (0)

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

November 1, 2008 at 01:00 pm by aelusive, 112 views, add comment

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from