No-Prejudice No More: New York and the Death of the No-Prejudice Rule

States differ in how they treat situations where an insured has not timely notified its insurer after an accident, claim, or loss. While the majority of states apply the noticeprejudice rule (which requires an insurer to show that the late notice prejudiced it before it can disclaim coverage), a minority of states apply the common law noprejudice rule, which allows an insurer to disclaim coverage after late notice, regardless of whether it has been prejudiced. Until recently, New York State was one of the most zealous adherents to the no-prejudice rule, rigidly applying it and ignoring the often inequitable results. However, recently passed legislation has changed New York\u27s approach to late notice and brought it closer to the majority position by requiring the use of the notice-prejudice rule in liability policies. This Note examines the various approaches that states use to address late notice, with a particularf ocus on late notice in New York and the recent change in New York\u27s law. New York occupies a uniquely influential position on insurance practices. As a result, New York\u27s abandonment of the no-prejudice rule is likely to have an impact far beyond its borders. While the recent legislation is certainly a step in the right direction, this Note argues that it contains a number of provisions, which may prove to be problematic, and provides suggestions as to how courts should interpret them. Specifically, these provisions are: (r) the law\u27s limited application to liability policies only, (2) how the law allocates the burden of showing prejudice, (3) the law\u27s definition of prejudice, and (4) potential retroactive application of the law

A January Report

The following is the text of remarks delivered by Dean Fredric C. Tausend to the annual meeting of the law school\u27s Board of Visitors at the Norton Clapp Law Center on January 16, 1981

A January Report

The following is the text of remarks delivered by Dean Fredric C. Tausend to the annual meeting of the law school\u27s Board of Visitors at the Norton Clapp Law Center on January 16, 1981

Current Status of Rule 11 in the Ninth Circuit and Washington State

Admittedly, amended Rule 11 has stirred up a great deal of controversy. The Advisory Committee of which Professor Miller is now a member will be considering a variety of proposed amendments to the Rule. While in Seattle for the 1991 spring meeting of the American Bar Association, Professor Miller expressed his own personal hope that the Rule be left unchanged for now, predicting that the upsurge in its use (and misuse) will follow a bell-shaped curve. The authors concur with the hope that it be left unchanged until the bench and bar have had both additional time to develop the limits of salutary enforcement and the opportunity to create means for assisting that process such as those suggested in this essay

Current Status of Rule 11 in the Ninth Circuit and Washington State

Admittedly, amended Rule 11 has stirred up a great deal of controversy. The Advisory Committee of which Professor Miller is now a member will be considering a variety of proposed amendments to the Rule. While in Seattle for the 1991 spring meeting of the American Bar Association, Professor Miller expressed his own personal hope that the Rule be left unchanged for now, predicting that the upsurge in its use (and misuse) will follow a bell-shaped curve. The authors concur with the hope that it be left unchanged until the bench and bar have had both additional time to develop the limits of salutary enforcement and the opportunity to create means for assisting that process such as those suggested in this essay

Adubação nitrogenada e potássica de cafeeiro fertirrigado na fase de formação, em plantio adensado

O objetivo deste trabalho foi determinar o parcelamento e a dose de nitrogênio e potássio mais adequados para o primeiro e segundo anos de formação do cafeeiro (Coffea arabica) fertirrigado por gotejamento, no sul de Minas Gerais. Dois experimentos foram instalados simultaneamente com plantio adensado (6.666 plantas ha-1): em um, a adubação foi realizada em quatro aplicações ao ano e, no outro, em 12 aplicações. Utilizou-se o delineamento em blocos ao acaso com cinco tratamentos e quatro repetições em ambos os experimentos. Os tratamentos foram constituídos por doses, aplicadas via fertirrigação, equivalentes a 70, 100, 130, 160 e 190% da recomendada para N e K2O, para o cultivo em sequeiro. Foi realizado tratamento controle com cultivo em sequeiro e adubação com a dose padrão: 100% da recomendada. No primeiro e segundo anos, em ambos os tipos de parcelamento, não houve diferença significativa entre as doses, quanto ao crescimento do cafeeiro. O parcelamento em 12 aplicações é mais adequado para adubação de primeiro e segundo anos pós-plantio. Cafeeiros em formação fertirrigados por gotejamento apresentam maior crescimento e menor demanda por adubação com N e K do que os cultivados em sequeiro