By Randy J. Maniloff, White and Williams LLP, and Jeffrey W. Stempel This survey covers the insurability of punitive damages. Coverage includes all 50 US states and the District of Columbia. The issue is framed as whether a particular state's public policy permits a tortfeasor to insure against punitive damages that the tortfeasor may become legally obligated to pay. The availability of insurance coverage for punitive damages frequently arises in the context of uninsured and underinsured motorist policies. This survey makes some references to the issue in the context of uninsured and underinsured motorist policies, but primarily focuses on liability insurance and is not intended to be an exhaustive list. For related information, see Practice Note: US—punitive damages standards state law survey. State Insurability of punitive damages Alabama The Supreme Court of Alabama, without discussion of any public policy considerations, held that punitive damages were a ‘liability imposed by law,’ and, as such, within the coverage afforded by an automobile policy's insuring agreement, which provided: ‘To indemnify the assured…against loss from the liability

By Jeffrey A. Goldwater and George J. Manos, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, (updated by the Practical Guidance attorney team) Unlike other types of damages, punitive damages are not awarded to compensate a victim, but instead are meant to punish the wrongdoer and function as a deterrent. The conduct that triggers liability for punitive damages is of an extreme and outrageous nature, where the questionable acts are wilful, wanton, and intentional. In the overwhelming number of jurisdictions, punitive damages are not awarded for breach of contract, and are assessed far more frequently in tort actions. Both the punishing and deterrent aspects of punitive damages flow from legal wrongs, where the duty breached is essentially a social norm, and does not arise in a private contractual setting. Indeed, the crux of the tort of bad faith breach of insurance contracts lies in the desire to expose insurers to extra-contractual damages. The US Supreme Court in Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v Haslip, 499 US 1, 111 S. Ct. 1032 (1991), highlighted

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note was originally written for Lexis Practice Advisor®, in the US. This Practice Note provides an overview of the copyright registration process, including the benefits of federal registration, how to draft and file a copyright application (either electronically or by paper), filing fees, the deposit requirement, responding to inquiries from the US Copyright Office, and the possibility of preregistration of certain types of works. Note that the Copyright Office issued several notices adjusting timing provisions for certain copyright applications and expanding electronic submission options in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. For an overview of copyright law, see Practice Note: US—copyright fundamentals [Archived]. Benefits of copyright registration The moment an author fixes an original work of expression in a fixed medium (such as on paper, in a computer file, or on a sound recording), a copyright automatically attaches to that work. There is no requirement under the Copyright

What is social inflation? Social inflation is a term widely discussed in recent insurance debates but only vaguely defined. In a broad sense, social inflation is an increase in a defendant/insurer's claim costs over and above general economic inflation. More narrowly defined, social inflation is the rise of settlement values and jury verdicts and the broadening of defendants' and insurers' liability exposure because of factors outside the actual litigation. These factors include a change in perspective resulting from the public's growing awareness of social and financial disparities, a shift in the public's opinion about who should bear the burden of risk and the duty of care owed to the public, and an aggressive, organised national plaintiffs’ bar that shares both information and techniques to shape the mind of the public and potential jurors' world view. These include the use of reptile tactics at trial and a broad use of social media and technology, including ad campaigns that portray corporations and insurance companies as ‘the bad guys’,

Dispute Resolution analysis: Section 1782 of Title 28 of the United States Code (Section 1782) authorises federal district courts to order any person who ‘resides or is found in’ the judicial district to provide discovery ‘for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal.’ The Second Circuit has held that ‘that Section 1782’s ‘resides or is found’ language extends to the limits of personal jurisdiction consistent with due process.’ So, how does tag jurisdiction relate to Section 1782? Could a person seeking discovery for use in a foreign or international tribunal serve a corporate officer or director with process while he is temporarily present in the judicial district and then seek discovery under Section 1782 of documents that this person controls? Professor William S Dodge, UC Davis School of Law considers the decision and its implications.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note was originally written for Lexis Practice Advisor®, in the US. This Practice Note provides an overview of federal trade dress protection and enforcement under the Lanham Act. It addresses the potential categories of trade dress, the requirements for trade dress protection (ie distinctiveness and nonfunctionality), the advantages of federal registration, and trade dress enforcement (including trade dress infringement, dilution, and counterfeiting claims). This Practice Note also discusses the importance of an integrated protection strategy that comprises trade dress, copyright, and design patent protection, where feasible. Trade dress basics Trade dress is, generally speaking, the total image and overall appearance of a product or service. It may include features such as: • size • shape • color or color combinations • texture • graphics • sounds, scents, and flavors • motion and moving images • particular business techniques • the look and feel of a website See Two Pesos, Inc v Taco Cabana, Inc, 505 U.S. 763 (1992) (not

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note was originally written for Lexis Practice Advisor®, in the US. This Practice Note provides guidance on conducting a trademark audit. It discusses the benefits of a trademark audit and the key components of an audit, including reviewing or creating a docket (ie list) of a company’s trademark assets and drafting an audit report that discusses each item in the docket. A trademark audit may be conducted internally (eg by a company’s legal department or in-house counsel) or by outside counsel, depending on the scope of the audit. Ideally, a trademark audit should be performed at least once a year. It may also be requested by a third party in certain instances, such as in connection with a merger or acquisition. Benefits of a trademark audit A trademark audit provides a company with the information necessary to review and manage one of its most important and recognisable intellectual property assets, its trademark portfolio. Specifically, an audit can be used to:

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note was originally written for Lexis Practice Advisor®, in the US. This Practice Note provides an overview of key trademark law principles, including the requirements for trademark protection, ownership, proper trademark usage, the ways in which trademark rights may be lost (eg through abandonment, genericide, naked licensing, or assignments in gross), limitations on trademark protection (eg the first-sale doctrine, descriptive and nominative fair use, laches, acquiescence), enforcement, and remedies. What is a trademark? Trademarks are typically words, phrases, symbols, and/or designs that are used as source identifiers for particular products. Service marks are the same as trademarks, except that they are used as source identifiers for particular services. However, both trademarks and service marks are commonly referred to simply as ‘trademarks’ or ‘marks’. Under the ‘Information matter’ doctrine, a mark cannot be registered if, rather than identifying the source of a product or service, the mark merely conveys informational matter, see In re Go & Assocs, LLC, 90 F.4th 1354, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2024)

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note was originally written for Lexis Practice Advisor®, in the US. This Practice Note discusses trademark infringement and false designation of origin claims under the Lanham Act, including standing requirements, the necessary elements to prove such claims, and potential remedies (including injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees). It also provides an overview of defenses that are commonly asserted in trademark actions. Trademark owners may bring actions to stop others from using, copying, or otherwise damaging their trademarks or service marks (collectively, trademarks or marks). In fact, trademark owners (and sometimes exclusive licensees) have a legal duty to police and enforce their rights. Failure to do so could lead to a loss of rights. Trademark owners should consider bringing a lawsuit when: • immediate action is necessary to protect the mark from irreparable injury • less formal methods of resolving the dispute have failed (eg a cease and desist letter has been

Tax analysis: In Saunders v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed a non-UK resident taxpayer’s appeal against the First-tier Tax Tribunal’s (FTT) decision that a £1.2m payment he received from his former employer on the realisation of ‘stock appreciation rights’ (SARs) awarded to him in respect of his UK employment were taxable earnings that were not excluded from charge by split-year treatment.

Tax analysis: In CATS North Sea Ltd v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed the appellant’s appeal in relation to the capital allowances consequences of an intra-group transfer of a hydrocarbon pipeline.

Tax analysis: In the Trustees of the Panico Panayi Accumulation and Maintenance Settlements Numbers 1 to 4, the Upper Tribunal (UT) considered two joined appeals against decisions of the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) that exit taxes imposed on trustees of a settlement and a company as a result of ceasing to be UK resident for tax purposes ought not to be disapplied. The UT rejected the argument that the exit tax legislation ought to be disapplied in the circumstances and instead applied a conforming interpretation.