Sentences with phrase «defense costs so»

Either way, your policy covers defense costs so that doesn't have to come out of your pocket, either.

Not exact matches

Again, the cost of litigation is at least as great as the claims paid out, so make sure the legal defense costs coverage is ample.

You can add another $ 800 billion a year if you budget for future commitments, such as the future cost of pensions for our current standing military, so while the Defense appropriation is $ 640 billion, the actual cost to tax payers has been estimated at $ 1.7 trillion dollars each year — about 40 % of the annual Federal budget.

BFG has not been up to it so far this season, addition to our defense was promised in the summer but not delivered, according to Wenger «He looked but none was available», fast forward to AGM and Wenger says «we will purchase a defender in January», well if we couldn't find a defender in the summer will that defender miraculously become available in January when 1) his cost will be twice as expensive 2) could be cup tied and 3) with clubs fighting relegation or fighting for the title.

Whether they just file a claim on your policy or actually try to sue you, your policy will defend against that claim or suit so you don't have to pay defense costs, in addition to actually paying the claim where appropriate.

Your policy provides defense for claims that would be covered if proven, so those costs are not on you when you're covered.

The defense costs don't take away from the policy limits, so that $ 100,000 or more is still available to pay those claims.

Defense costs can be staggering, so this benefits both you and the insurer — you're not worried about burning through your policy limits with the cost of a lawyer and the insurer is able to continue to defend against a suit for which they may be responsible even if they spend more than the policy limits to do so.

Most policies are even written so that those defense costs don't count against your policy limits, leaving the full limit available to pay or settle the claim.

The product that supports Double - Defense, called Vectra 3D, also kills fleas and ticks, which is something pet owners need anyway, so this is all cost effective, too.

The judgment of dismissal carried enough jurisdiction, so to speak, so that the award of costs was a proper incident to the trial court's power to adjudge the jurisdictional defense in the first instance.

So for an additional premium, an insured can purchase CEOL and there will be, if you will, a different bucket for the defense cost.

And so then not only has the insured, the attorney who has filed the collection action, not only have they incurred cost for the lawyer that they retained and the collection action, they may have a deductible on their policy that they're paying for defense counsel assigned for the counterclaim, they may be losing lost billable hours.

In case any such action is brought against an Indemnified Party, and it notifies the Indemnifying Party of the commencement thereof, the Indemnifying Party will be entitled to participate in, and, to the extent that it may wish, jointly with any other Indemnifying Party similarly notified, to assume the defense thereof, subject to the provisions herein stated, with counsel reasonably satisfactory to the Indemnified Party, and after notice from the Indemnifying Party to the Indemnified Party of its election to so assume the defense thereof, the Indemnifying Party will not be liable to the Indemnified Party under this Section 9 for any legal or other expenses subsequently incurred by the Indemnified Party in connection with the defense thereof other than reasonable costs of investigation.

«The keys to successfully litigating these issues for policyholder counsel are: (i) focus on the policy language; (ii) think about what happens if the policyholder wins the liability case; (iii) considering the overwhelmingly common practice of carriers» funding the defense, argue that the burden of dispelling the expectation of coverage is on the carrier to negate defense coverage; and (iv) recognize that while the incurrence of defense costs can be a catastrophic exposure to the policyholder it can also be so for the carrier, meaning that the policyholder must sensitively respond to the equitable force of the insurer's arguments and not simply rely on «punish the drafter» arguments or what the Nabisco court characterized as» «mom and pop» grocery store argument [s]» (unless one has to).

On appeal, the First Circuit certified three questions to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: (1) whether an insurer owes a duty under an insurance policy or the Massachusetts «in for one, in for all» rule to prosecute an insured's counterclaim; (2) whether an insurer owes a duty to fund the prosecution of an insured's counterclaim as part of «Defense Costs;» and (3) when such a duty might give rise to a conflict of interest, so that the insured is entitled to separate counsel at the insurer's expense.

It would most likely be up to a jury to consider whether modern day football helmet has any design defects and, in weighing that question, a Massachusetts jury would be asked to weigh several factors: - the gravity of the danger posed by the current football helmet design - the likelihood that head injury will result from the use of the helmet - the technical feasibility of a safer alternative design - the financial feasibility of that alternative design, and - any other consequences likely to result from the alternative design However, even if a jury were to conclude that there exists a cost - effective design that would be more effective in preventing head injuries than the current football helmet design, the manufacturer might still have a few defenses under Massachusetts law: the so - called Vassallo defense and Correia defense.

That can be six figures, with defense costs on top of that number, so this coverage is important to your finances and your future.

Most policies are even written so that those defense costs don't count against your policy limits, leaving the full limit available to pay or settle the claim.

Whether the damages they suffer are real or imagined, your policy provides you with a defense against the claim and pays for the claim so that your personal assets don't need to cover the costs.

Whether they just file a claim on your policy or actually try to sue you, your policy will defend against that claim or suit so you don't have to pay defense costs, in addition to actually paying the claim where appropriate.

Your policy provides defense for claims that would be covered if proven, so those costs are not on you when you're covered.

Defense costs can be staggering, so this benefits both you and the insurer — you're not worried about burning through your policy limits with the cost of a lawyer and the insurer is able to continue to defend against a suit for which they may be responsible even if they spend more than the policy limits to do so.

That is why it is so important that your Norwell commercial insurance policy includes the right kinds of liability coverage, which can cover legal defense, court costs and financial damages.

Realty companies normally have a defense against monopolistic claims, since competitors» start - up costs are so low, notes NAR's Legal Affairs department.

Therefore, the Broker and Brokerage were negligent in their representation of the Bank and so were liable to the Bank for all costs incurred in its defense of this lawsuit.

When institutions become so big that they communally think that they can not fail, they automatically go into brand - defense mode whereby the brand (and their jobs therein) is / are what must be saved at all costs, at the expense of those for whom they claim to exist... the expendables... the grunts.