Where does the legal principle of &quot;can&#39;t benefit twice&quot; come from? I've been told there is a legal principle (in UK law, specifically England) that a person cannot be allowed to benefit twice from a court's decision. I've found criminal law which addresses that, and inheritance precedents, but this is a civil case. Specifically an insurance company is trying to avoid paying benefit, relying on an argument that lawful tax avoidance was used to defer tax on certain funds, and so requiring them to pay benefits in relationship to those funds would be the equivalent of allowing the policyholder to benefit twice - first in avoiding tax, and then again by receiving insurance cover for the loss of those funds. I have been told that this inability to benefit twice is a well-established principle of english common law - but I can't find it. Certainly there's no issue with the insurance company needing to pay the benefit twice, and if they are allowed to benefit by avoiding paying on the policy then they would be benefiting from the policyholder's careful and lawfulapproach to paying only the tax required under the law. No doubt this is basic law 101, at least I hope so! If anyone could point me to actual law, and also real cases where this might have been applied in any similar way in a civil case, I'd be very grateful.
The earliest mention of the principle that I can find is in Rolston v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland [1975] NI 195, where the matter of compensation for the widow of a police officer murdered in Northern Ireland arose. I am sure there are earlier cases that express the same principle in different terms, however. It is a broad principle that applies to most areas of civil law, and I cannot find an original source for it. I imagine that it is simply &quot;received wisdom&quot; that has been repeated long enough to become a cornerstone of the law of restitution in England and Wales. There is currently no statutory basis for the principle so I cannot cite any relevant Acts of Parliament either.
Sec. 171.208(c) of the law provides: (c) Notwithstanding Subsection (b), a court may not award relief under this section in response to a violation of Subsection (a)(1) or (2) if the defendant demonstrates that the defendant previously paid the full amount of statutory damages under Subsection (b)(2) in a previous action for that particular abortion performed or induced in violation of this subchapter, or for the particular conduct that aided or abetted an abortion performed or induced in violation of this subchapter. The apparent intention, as I see it, is that a defendant is only supposed to have to pay the $10,000 damages once, so that it's not possible for a large number of plaintiffs to sue and collect. Some others have pointed out that there may be a loophole in case there are judgments in several cases before the defendant pays for the first one, and that in such a situation the defendant might be required to pay more than once. It doesn't seem to me, on its face, that such a loophole was intended, but we may have to wait and see how courts handle it. In any case, it would seem that the defendant could minimize this possibility by paying the judgment as quickly as possible.
You asked about other jurisdictions. As you'll probably be aware (from cases like EU vs Microsoft and EU vs Google) European countries and culture tend to have much stronger protection laws for consumer and employee rights than the US does. In the UK you could make a strong case, although such cases are not often undertaken. The current legislation is Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, but the unfair contract terms clause goes back to at least the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Basically the law protects a person in a situation where disparity of size and bargaining power have led to unfair terms in a contract (typically a large company offering "take it or leave it" standard terms) - and specifically if they create a significant disparity in the parties rights and obligations. In such a situation the company which drafted the terms alleged to be unfair must show they are reasonable. A list of common terms likely to be seen as unfair is provided. (Employment terms are covered by other laws but also aim to prevent abuses due to inequality of contracting power) A company which sold a product like Windows 7/8/8.1 and then later said "we are changing our terms of support and forcing you to upgrade" (especially to a different product the user may not want, or a product that is maintained in a different way),would almost certainly be at substantial risk of falling foul of this. It wouldn't matter if it was done by not providing the support/patches as originally implied (by custom or normal expectation) or as agreed in an explicit statement of support life cycle, or by saying "we have the right under the contract to do this", or by forcing what is essentially a change of product to get the updates. It also wouldnt matter how big they are, nor whether or not the user had already agreed "because I felt I had no choice". The law is there specifically to protect against abuses like this, so it is drafted to catch companies who try to find "wriggle room".
This is a well established model in the UK. One route is the umbrella company. Y here would be the umbrella company. A would then either be providing services to Y or be employed by Y. You may be wondering what use it is if A is employed by Y. The answer here is that whilst A may not benefit from the tax treatment, X does not bear the burden of running PAYE etc. Further, because of regulations such as IR35, it may be that there is a doubt as to whether employment tax apply even if there is a contract for service. Essentially disguised employment means taxes are levied on the employer as if an employment existed; however, in this situation X has the comfort that if this arises they will (normally) fall on Y rather than X. Another route is the service company, where normally A himself will own it (or it is owned between A and A's spouse), take a combination of salary and dividends out (using two allowances if owned between spouses), and he will bill X or Y; companies exist which will perform all the necessary paperwork to do this (in which case Y is called a managed service company), as opposed to a personal service company (if A sets it up himself). It's not clear where you are based, but if you are based outside the UK (and possibly if you are inside the UK) there are accountancy companies that specialise in setting all this up.
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.
I think the question answers itself : what's being put forward as a problem (that official organisations can cover their members' liability at events) is actually their main advantage. Liability doesn't go away - assuming your friend's lawyer's advice was accurate, it might have been better phrased as &quot;liability will be on the participants&quot;. I'm not sure it's entirely right (though it might just be overly specific) in the way it's been reported - if there was anything that could be considered incitement to, or encouragement of, unlawful activity, there may be an additional liability on the person whose name is attached to the group, and possibly the platform used (though this is a young area of law at the moment). What's covered by the insurance will be dependent on the policy, so that's not a question that The Bloke On The Internet can answer. In terms of discounts, I don't see any reason these couldn't be offered on a social media group - or that there would be a significant difference between a social media group, an official or unofficial website, or coupons published in a magazine or distributed in flyers on a street corner. It's worth bearing in mind that distributors don't do this out of kindness - it's just advertising. If an official club, or the associated manufacturer (the owner of the brand), believed there was quantifiable loss - primarily financial, but possibly reputational - there may be grounds to demand any unofficial group cease and desist, irrespective of where (social media, websites, physical premises) they had a presence. But perhaps the greatest advantage (though I'm drifting off topic for this SE) for an official group is that it can use whichever medium it considers most useful at the time, or a combination of several. One tied to a specific social media platform will always be limited in its longevity.
Now I'm having another conversation with a lawyer and I'm not particularly happy (not to say outraged) that to answer a simple question they require £95 + VAT for 30 minutes Skype session. Maybe it is a common practice in law industry - in my industry (web development) we share our knowledge in an open-source manner. The rate you were charged is actually reasonable for such a limited engagement. Few lawyers are willing to even consider providing any advice on such a limited basis. Most would try to limit their clients to cases generating thousands of pounds in an in person visit. Lawyers are in the business of selling knowledge and time, not documents and results. An open-source approach would undermine their business model just as much as it would for the movie industry or the recording industry. While I appreciate professional legal advice (I know it is required) I have a belief that by obtaining some knowledge first I'll be in a position to ask better questions. This belief is not necessarily very well founded in this context. The reality of information about the law is that the raw data has limited usefulness. One of the main things that a legal education provides is an ability to "issue spot" so that you know what points need to be researched and where to look for them. Without the overall context that a legal education provides, knowing what issues you should be looking for is difficult or impossible, and this is particular true in Anglo-American common law systems, where the law is embedded in an opaque network of appellate cases rather than laid out more or less completely in a carefully organized statute. Also, you are almost completely unqualified to distinguish between a simple question and a hard one. Just as it is difficult for a non-expert to know what is difficult or impossible for a computer to do (e.g. turning raw image input in the models of reality is very hard for computers but easy for people, while intense calculations are simple for computers but hard for people), it is often very difficult for a non-lawyer to know what is an easy or hard legal question. For example, the rights of neighboring home owners when trees start to grow across property lines seem like simple questions but are actually extremely complex legally, as is another simple question such as explaining what a book means in IP terms as a book migrates to a new platform. But, some seemingly complex points (e.g. detailed questions of tax law or civil procedure) can have very simple and clear answers. Finally, keep in mind that in a situation like spousal alimony, if you've done as much research as you state, it is very likely that a definitive answer that you are looking for simply does not exist. There a lots of legal questions that do not have clear objective answers. This is because trial judges in family law matters have wide discretion in a lot of the fine points of alimony decisions, much of it exercised at the trial court level that does not generate binding legal precedents and is not widely available to researchers. Therefore, there is really no substitute in evaluating how judges will exercise that discretion for the collective experience of an attorney who has been through the process many, many times before the particular group of judges who are likely to handle your individual case. In sum, while I understand your frustration, a lot of it is rooted in common, but inaccurate assumptions about how the legal system works.
I assume that the loan was legal, in light of rule changes pertaining to non-borrowing spouses. If so, there is really no recourse other than to repay the loan. This article explains the current options / restrictions in an understandable manner, but of course it is too late to do anything about it. If there was actually fraud or coercion in the loan, or if the elder party was mentally incompetent, there might be some legal recourse, but we don't have any evidence of fraud, coercion or incompetence here.