Publication
AI regulation in the UK: Will the next government introduce AI legislation?
The current government’s approach to AI regulation draws on non-binding, cross-sectoral principles.
Global | Publication | August 2016
When the Supreme Court of Texas delivered its opinion in In re Deepwater Horizon on February 13, 2015, commentators across the country pondered the impact of the opinion in the insurance industry. Many wondered whether the case would cause a sea change in the manner courts – at least Texas courts – interpret insurance policies. This article examines the impact In re Deepwater Horizon has had on insurance law in Texas. At the present time, results are mixed on Deepwater Horizon’s impact.
As a reminder, In re Deepwater Horizon raised the issue of what language is required to incorporate the limitations in an underlying contract referenced in an insurance policy. The insurance policy at issue named BP as an additional insured under the policy; however, the parties disputed whether BP’s coverage under the policy was determined strictly by the policy or whether it incorporated limitations in the underlying drilling contract. The insurance policies did not contain any explicit language limiting BP’s coverage as an additional insured. The Texas Supreme Court held that BP’s coverage under the policy was, in fact, defined by the drilling contract. The Court reasoned that there is no need for “magic words to incorporate a restriction from another contract into an insurance policy.” Since the drilling contract simply required BP to be named an additional insured “for liabilities assumed” under the contract, the Court reasoned that BP’s coverage under the insurance policy was also limited to the items listed in the drilling contract. There was a concern by many commentators that the Court’s ruling in In re Deepwater Horizon would lead to the overinclusion of limitations in outside contracts in insurance disputes.
Download the full article: In re deepwater horizon A year and a half later
Publication
The current government’s approach to AI regulation draws on non-binding, cross-sectoral principles.
Publication
What appears to be a simple question is not as straightforward as one would think. One might take the view that it is just a matter of common sense whether something is a ship or not, yet it is difficult to define exhaustively what exactly a ship is, or the extent to which something forms part of a “ship”.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023