Infected Judgment: Problematic Rush to Conventional Wisdom and Insurance Coverage Denial in a Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic created not only a public health crisis but also an insurance coverage imbroglio, prompting near-immediate business interruption claims by policyholders impacted by government restrictions ordered in response to the pandemic. Insurers and their representatives “presponded” to the looming coverage claims by quickly moving to denigrate arguments for coverage, engaging in a pre-emptive strike that has largely worked to date, inducing too many courts to rush to judgment by declaring—as a matter of law—that policy terms such as “direct physical loss or damage” do not even arguably encompass the business shutdowns resulting from COVID-19.
Ending the Use of Customer Arbitration
A recent article published in the New York Times discusses Amazon’s change to its legal complaints process for its customers. Until recently, Amazon customers were required to pursue disputes with the company through a private arbitration process instead of through the courts.
The Institute in the Courts: U.K. Supreme Court Cites Restatement of the U.S. Law of International Commercial and Investor–State Arbitration
Disputes arising under international commercial contracts that contain arbitration agreements implicate different systems of law, including the law governing the substance of the dispute, the law governing the agreement to arbitrate, and the law governing the arbitration process, or the “curial law.” In Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom addressed an issue that “has long divided courts and commentators,” both in the United Kingdom and internationally.
The ALI and the Pandemic
This Director’s Letter was originally published in the summer 2021 edition of The ALI Reporter.
Two Moralities of Consistency
A core tenet of the claim that international investment law promotes the rule of law is that it enhances legal certainty for foreign investors. This Chapter seeks to distinguish between tolerable consistency deficiencies in investment treaty arbitration and more structural inconsistencies that are inimical to the rule of law.
Foreign Relations Law Restatements Cited
Both the Third and Fourth Restatement of the Law, The Foreign Relations Law of the United States, were cited by the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit in Lusik Usoyan v. Republic of Turkey.
The ALI Adviser is intended to inform readers about the legal topics and issues examined in many of ALI’s current projects; posts do not necessarily represent the position of the Institute taken in those projects. Posts on The ALI Adviser are written by ALI project participants, ALI members, and outside sources.