Which insurer is liable for a peril than spans two policy periods Consider the following hypothetical scenario - A homeowner has decided to switch insurers from Gecko to NoState, the old Gecko policy ends at 12:01am on January 1st, and the new NoState policy starts at 12:01am on January 1st. Assume both policies have identical amounts of coverage. Unfortunately, the battery in the homeowner's Samsing Milky Way Bill 7 overheats and starts a fire in one corner of the house at 11:30pm on Dec 31st. By 12:00am on Jan 1st the fire has reached the middle of the house, and by 12:30am the entire property is ablaze. The fire department shows up and puts out the fire, but there's no recoverable personal property and the entire (remaining) structure would need to be demolished and built from scratch. Which insurer is responsible for covering the homeowner's costs to rebuild their house? What about costs of temporary accommodation, etc? Bonus question - can either/both Gecko or NoState sue Samsing?
Who Is On The Risk? This depends upon the language of the respective Gecko and NoState policies, the liability of each insurer is determined independently, and it is possible that neither, one or both of them would be "on the risk" as they say in the industry. Usually, insurance policies are drafted on either an "occurrence" basis (i.e. when the "incident" occurred), or on a "claims made" basis (i.e. when the "incident" was reported to the insurer). Unless the homeowner was awfully mindful and called his insurance agent almost simultaneously with the fire department, NoState would be on the risk if it was a claims made policy, and Gecko would not be on the risk if it was a claims made policy. In ordinary U.S. homeowner's insurance policies, an occurrence policy is much more common than a claims made policy. So, one would first look at the definition of an occurrence in the Gecko policy and see if there was an occurrence prior to the expiration, in which case the Gecko policy would cover it, and then one would look at the definition of an occurrence in the NoState policy and see if there was an occurrence after the policy term commenced, in which case NoState would cover it. The same principles discussed in this answer would apply in a non-U.S. case, but the typical language found in a homeowner's policy in non-U.S. jurisdictions might very well be different. There is a very decent possibility in this situation that this would count as an occurrence for both Gecko and NoStates' policy, although if only one of the policies was on the risk, it would probably be the Gecko policy and not the NoState policy. There is no one uniform definition of occurrence, many definitions of when an occurrence takes place are not sufficiently precise to exclude either Gecko or NoState in this fact pattern, and generally speaking, there is a legal rule that interprets legal language in an insurance contract in favor of the insured to the extent that there is any doubt as to its meaning. If both policies were on the risk, they would each have to provide coverage to the extent of their contract, although there would usually be some anti-double recovery language in each policy to prevent the insured from getting more payments for any particular kind of loss than the total losses of the insured. The relative burdens of each insurer would be worked out in a negotiation involving the Gecko, NoState and the insured, and by a court if the negotiations did not result in an agreement. A negotiated deal would reflect any uncertainty regarding the likelihood that Gecko or NoState respectively would be required to pay. For example, if Gecko was clearly on the risk according to its policy language, and NoState was only probably on the risk but not clearly based upon its policy language, in double recovery situations, NoState might pay less than 50% of the portion of the loss that would otherwise give rise to a double recovery. What Is Covered? The amount of coverage (e.g. replacement value v. current value of the building and property therein, temporary accommodations, etc.) would depend entirely on the coverage set forth the insurance contract of each insurance company that is on the risk. Coverages vary a great deal and influence insurance premium prices. Usually, for example, you would be able to get policies with or without temporary accommodations coverage as you wished when you purchased the policy and that decision would govern what the insurance company on the risk would have to pay for when a claim was made by the insured. As an aside, keep in mind that a significant part of the payment would go to the mortgage holder, if any, and that a homeowner's insurance policy almost never covers the part of the value of a home that is attributable to the land that it is build upon, rather than that building that was destroyed itself. If your house was worth $300,000 and subject to a $150,000 mortgage, and was built on a lot worth $100,000 if it were vacant, the insurance payout would typically be $200,000, of which $150,000 would be paid to the bank holding the mortgage and $50,000 would be paid to the home owner who would also retain title to the parcel of real estate that the house was built upon. With the same facts, but a $250,000 mortgage, an insurance payout of $200,000 would go to the bank holding the mortgage, no payment would be made for damage to the house to the home owner directly, and the homeowner could continue to retain the title to the parcel of real estate that the house was built upon subject to a remaining $50,000 mortgage balance. What what would happen next would depend upon the fine print in the mortgage. The amounts paid to the mortgage holder, as well as the amounts paid to the home owner, would both contribute to the amount of the insurance company's subrogation rights discussed below. Subrogation Bonus question - can either/both Gecko or NoState sue Samsing? Any insurance company who pays an insurance claim caused by the tortious fault of another (e.g. Samsing, if its product was defective in a manner sufficient to give rise to legal liability) has a right to sue the party at fault for the loss the insurance company suffered in what is called a subrogation lawsuit. If both companies paid, both would have subrogation claims against Samsing for the amount that they paid. The insured could also sue Samsing for any losses suffered, whether or not they were covered by insurance, but any insurance company that paid a related claim would also have a lien on any recovery of the insured in a suit by the insured against Samsing, for any loss paid by the party at fault to the insured that was within the scope of what the insurance company paid the insured for. If the insured had losses beyond what was covered by the insurance payment, or losses different in kind from what was covered by the insurance payment, and the insured recovered damages from the party at fault for those losses, this additional recovery would not be subject to the subrogation lien. For example, damages recovered from the party at fault for emotional distress, pain and suffering, permanent physical impairment, and temporary accommodations (if none of the insurance policies on the risk covered temporary accommodations) would not be subject to a subrogration lien of the insurance company or companies that paid claims to the insured for other damages suffered by the insured in connection with the incident. Also, if, for example, the insurance policy had a policy limit of $100,000, but the insured suffered $150,000 of damages and recovered that from Samsing in either a collected court judgment or a settlement payment, the $50,000 of excess recovery for economic damages beyond the subrogation lien would belong to the insured. Since the insured would typically sue with a lawyer hired on a contingent basis, usually, the insured lawyer would reach an agreement with the insurance companies holding the subrogration liens for them to pay a contingent fee to him on the same basis as his primary client if he recovered funds subject to the subrogration liens, so that his client would not walk away empty handed after using his entirely recovery to pay his attorneys' contingent fee, or would reach some other agreement addressing the same problem.
Utah uses the IFC Code with modifications (none of which apper relevant based on a seach for "extinguisher"). You describe your premisis as a "townhome" which suggests it is a free-standing house, if so the classification of your building would appear to be R-3 and fire extinguishers are not requires in that classification. If it is instead an apartment (more than 2 dwellings in the same building) then it is R-2 and fire extinguishers are required and would normally be the responsibility of the building owner. Notwithstanding, a building built in the 1980s should not have electrical faults: You might wish to persuade the landlord to conduct an audit of the electrical system since he will be out of pocket if the building burns down.
The answer is, "No, it will not default to the state where the recording device is located." Whether your recording is legal or not may depend on where the device is located, but it may depend on other things as well. For example, to sue under Florida law, "the persons bringing suit must be Florida residents or the improper "interception" must have occurred in Florida." Thus, if the someone from NY is recorded while in Florida by someone in NJ, Florida law does not apply. The rules used to determine which state's laws apply under which circumstances are explained thoroughly here. The issue of which state's laws apply is what is known as "conflict of laws." The basic idea is simple: Because you and the insurance company are citizens of different states, you have "diversity of citizenship." If the laws in your states differ, the court must decide whose law applies -- is it the state you called from, the state you called to, or federal law? Unfortunately for you, choice of law is hard even for lawyers to get a handle on. There are several different approaches states use to answer questions about conflict of law. Which approach a state uses to settle conflicts of law will determine whose law that state's courts will apply. To get a correct answer, you need to talk to an attorney who understands conflict of law and the admissibility of wiretaps.
What you are talking about here is the tort of negligent misstatement, a subset of the tort of negligence. First, there is no presumption in any jurisdiction that I am aware of that anyone is or is not a lawyer (or doctor, or engineer etc.). If people knew that you were, however, then it is reasonable that they would give your statements more weight then if they did not know. It may also be reasonable if they suspected you were. The practical purpose of such a disclaimer is to ensure that they know you aren't. For the specific facts you give, you would certainly be in a better position if you said: "But I'm not a lawyer, so you should seek professional advice"; not so much because you told them you weren't a lawyer but rather because this changes your advice to "seek professional advice". It's impossible to be wrong with that advice! The standard form in Australia is: "this advice is general in nature and not to be taken as personal professional advice". If the statement is limited to "I'm not a lawyer" or if your neighbour knew you were, for instance, a dog catcher with no professional qualifications, then you could still potentially be liable. Your neighbour would need to demonstrate: You had a duty of care; by giving advice you potentially do, however, a for negligent misstatement there must be a 'special relationship' [Hawkins V Clayton (1988) 164 CLR 539, MLC Assurance V Evatt]. You breached that duty; the advice given was "unreasonable". There was a factual cause in a "cause and effect" sense; 'but for' your advice there would have been no loss. There was a legal (proximate) cause; damage to the neighbour as a result of the advice must be foreseeable. Harm; the neighbour must suffer real loss. The main point of the disclaimers is on the 2nd point: what is "unreasonable" for a professional is different than for a "lay person". Oh, and by the way: this advice is general in nature and not to be taken as personal professional advice.
Non-residential tenancies are subject to Fla. Stat Ch. 83 Part I. This is statutorily a tenancy at-will unless a contrary agreement is in writing signed by the lessor: the duration of the lease is yearly, quarterly, monthly, weekly as determined by the periodicity of rent payments. There are various legal conditions related to rent default and causes for removing tenants, also conditions about premises that are wholly untenantable. Unlike residential leases, there are not any special statutory conditions surrounding the landlords presentation of leases. Florida law contemplates and allows the possibility that there are no written documents, and for non-residential tenancies has very little to say about it (only pertaining to the distinction between at-will vs not at-will leases). Therefore, the matter follows the general rules for contractual disputes: whoever makes the best case for their claims wins. If Bob has a scanned copy, that is excellent proof. If Alice alleges and proves that the scanned copy was modified, that disposes of Bob's evidence. If Alice presents a copy of the contract that says otherwise (I do mean copy), then this anomaly has to be explained. Bob can claim that they tore up Alice's original and renegotiated the deal, but he needs to prove that claim. If Alice presents the original contract, Bob's story becomes much less plausible. There are millions of variants of what might happen: the point is, there is no requirement to present the original signed document to support a claim in a contractual dispute.
Although crypto space may be little regulated, insurance is in most jurisdictions highly regulated. Any such arrangement would need to comply with current laws on insurance, until and unless modified laws to cover this sort of thing are passed, and then it would need to comply with those. Tax authorities generally allow one to declare &quot;other business income&quot; or &quot;other investment income&quot; without forming a legal entity. I cannot say how such income would be classified in any given jurisdiction. Whether the platform, or some legal entity associated with the platform, would need to be registered will depend on the current laws and regulations governing insurance, and on the way in which teh contracts are structured. A disclaimer cannot prevent one from being sued. The contracts would need to carefully and explicitly state who is liable for what. Programs cannot be held accountable for anything. Legal entities, including operators of programs, can be. If negligence in the creation or operation of a program causes a loss, the operator may well be liable. Programs cannot be sued for anything. Legal entities, including operators of programs, can be. It may well be essential to constitute the &quot;platform&quot; as a legal entity of some sort. Otherwise its operator will be liable for its actions. I cannot be sure. I once encountered a somewhat similar system in which insurance was provided by individuals exchanging contracts, so that in a sense each member insured all the others. There was a company that supervised and provided legal and administrative services to the group of individuals, and collected fees for this. That sounds a bit similar to the suggested platform, but I don't know exactly how that company was organized. The system was called &quot;NJ CURE&quot;. I don't know if it is still in operation.
Bob can certainly &quot;engage&quot; a personal injury lawyer, but it is highly unlikely that they would take the case... Let's take a look at the facts... In Texas, you are required to register every vehicle unless it is damaged beyond repair or destroyed (it's intended to be scrapped). Bob did not do this In Texas, every registered vehicle must be insured, at a minimum, for liability insurance. Bob did not do this But, because of the insurance requirement you can get the information from TxDOT about the other vehicle's registration and insurance. It's more likely than not that the other vehicle is also uninsured, but if it is, Bob should contact Ted's insurance company. Because Bob did not register or insure the car that was parked on the street, Bob assumed liability that the insurance company would typically cover. If Bob had properly insured the vehicle, including uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage (which must be declined in writing in Texas), Bob would be whole (minus the deductible). Bob's total liability should be the deductible on the vehicle. Another not-small contributing factor is that this is a self-proclaimed &quot;project vehicle&quot;, meaning it has low current value despite a possible high future value. Without insurance, the entire liability would amount to the actual current value of the vehicle, the amount it would take to buy another in exactly the same condition. Now back to the PI lawyer, they make money by suing insurance companies for personal injury (damage to your car is not a &quot;personal injury&quot;) because they have the ability to pay. Private individuals, especially those without insurance, typically do not have the ability to pay. The PI can typically recover all the attorneys fees + up to half the judgement. So even if the PI agreed to take the case, and they won some amount (let's say $50,000 which includes attorneys fees and judgement), Ted would probably not be able to pay for this. The PI goes back to the client for the fees and now Bob is in even worse condition, since a majority of the $50,000 judgement would be attorneys fees. Really the best remedy Bob has in this case is to sue Ted in small claims for the value of the vehicle up to the maximum of the court (in Texas, this is a generous $20,000). Small claims courts have a lower burden of proof and Bob can use Alan as a witness.
A contract is about risk allocation. One of the risks a contract can allocate is events outside the control of the contracting parties. For example, who is responsible if government regulations change, if it rains, if a structure collapses and if a third party does or does not do any particular thing. This does not make the contract an insurance contract or a contract for gambling. An insurance contract involves indemnification against all third parties. A gambling contract is primarily for wagering on an outcome i.e. the consideration from both parties is a bet. If you are unwilling to take the risk as allocated don't enter the contract. Now, no contract can have a penalty clause - these are unenforceable. However, being required to cover someone's actual or estimated costs is not a penalty clause.