Law Paper on a case of two insurers absconding their duties of compensation

Assignment 1: Memorandum

From: Firm Paralegal

To: Assigned Attorney

Subject: A Legal Memorandum

Date: June 1, 2018

Issue: Tim and Lisa Parker’s two issues encompasses insurance compliance law and entails the case of two insurers absconding their duties of compensating the couple after their insured property was affected by accidents. The first case was that Lisa bought an insurance policy cover for their home from American Security Insurance Company on November 3, 2010.  However, the couple entered into a separation agreement and Lisa deeded her interest in the home to Tim. The couple then divorced on August 26, 2015 and shortly after, on August 26 2015, the house was gutted down by fire. The issue here is that the insurance company failed to pay claiming that Lisa did not have insurable interest on the house on the time of accident. The second scenario was the couple’s in Lake Charles, Louisiana, being damaged by a falling tree on September 2014 after a hurricane struck the area. They reported the matter to their insurer, Lafayette Insurance Co. on by October 7, 2014. However, the insurer breached their duty of fair dealing in good faith prompting the Parker’s to sue them. The Jury ruled in their favor that the insurer was liable to pay the couple $144,800.00 in losses.

Rule explanation: In the first case, the rules that apply entails deciding on insurable interest in a house by a couple whereby one person has deeded interest to the other (Guillem and Ángel 48). The facts to be considered here are that Lisa had an insurance cover on the house and that she had deeded her interest in the home to Tim. The court will thus have to rule on whether the couple should be compensated for their damaged house. In this case, the rule of law is “insurer’s duty of good faith and fair” since the insurance company seems to be taking advantage of the couple’s separation to abscond from compensating their house. On the second case, the court needs to ascertain whether Lafayette Insurance Co.’s is viable.

Application of the rule to the facts: The law is “insurer’s duty of good faith and fair” is applicable in both cases. It is shown that American Security Insurance Company is not acting in good faith in failing to compensate the couple on the grounds that Lisa didn’t have interests in the house whereas she had deeded it to her partner at the time of separation. On the second case, Lafayette Insurance Co. is also not acting in good faith and has not given any reasonable objection to the jury’s ruling.

Conclusion: The court should rule in favor of the Parkers for both cases.

 

Assignment 2: Memorandum

From: Firm Paralegal

To: Ron Reacher

Subject: A Legal Memorandum

Date: June 1, 2018

Issue: Thomas Crowne has over $300,000 in student loans. He was convicted of first-degree murder of state senator Tommy Burks. As such, he exhausted his savings trying to appeal the court decision. Furthermore, Thomas Crowne has a son born in August 1998 after he had already been convicted. Crowne was ordered to pay child support of $161.00 per month and $7,254.20 in medical expenses. However, he has not made any payment for child support and hence is in arrears to the tune $23,515.00. Crowne requests that his student loan be waived off on the basis of the hardships he is undergoing.

Rule explanation: The rules that apply on Crowne’s case entails on deciding whether he qualifies to be exempted from paying his student loans (Deming, Goldin, and Katz 2018). Full Discharge of loans of student loans takes place in the occurrence of serious circumstances such as permanent disability, death and in rare circumstances, bankruptcy. In the case of Crowne, he has to prove that he is eligible for full loan discharge. The second rules entails debtor’s duties and exemptions and discharge in bankruptcy. According to United States Bankruptcy Code section 522, an individual is to be exempted from a loan payment if it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that he/she is in a state of bankruptcy (Deming, Goldin, and Katz 2020).

Application of the rule to the facts: Crowne is technically bankrupt as shown by his current financial status. As such, he ought to apply for bankruptcy. In a situation whereby the application goes through, he should apply to be exempted from the student loan payments.

Conclusion: The court should rule in favor of Mr. Crowne.

Assignment 2: Memorandum

From: Firm Paralegal

To: Ron Reacher

Subject: A Legal Memorandum

Date: June 1, 2018

Issue: Norman Fell attended an auction at B & B Antiques. Fell purchased five lamps and one lamp shade from the auction from Auction & Realty, a business owned by the Thompsons. The lamps were identified as “Tiffany” lamps and the lamp shade was identified as a “Tiffany” product. Collectively, he spend $56,200 on the lamps. After inquiring from Fontaine’s Auction Gallery in Massachusetts, Fell found that the lamps were not Tiffany products but rather, they were reproductions. As such, he sued the Thompsons and the B&B Antiques. B & B was discharged from the case since it was not a legally formed LLC. The Thompsons on the other hand stated that the products were authentic and provided the conditions of the sales ass contained in its brochures.

Rule explanation: The rules that apply on this case encompass disclosure of information in business transactions (Coffee, John, Hillary and Henderson 48). However, from the brochure conditions of sales, The Thompsons dissociate themselves from any liability in a situation whereby the products are defective. They assert that the products are sold as they are and that there is no warranty whatsoever associated with them.

Application of the rule to the facts: In this case, it is shown that The Thompsons provided their terms of sales in their brochure. As such, a person buying from them would not be eligible to any warranty. Moreover, the brochure stipulates that the business would not be liable in a situation whereby the products were not as expected.

Conclusion: In this case, the court will rule in favor of the Thompsons.

 

 

Works Cited

Coffee Jr, John C., Hillary Sale, and M. Todd Henderson. “Securities regulation: Cases and materials.” (2015).

Deming, David J., Claudia Goldin, and Lawrence F. Katz. “Forgive and forget: Bankruptcy reform in the context of for-profit colleges.” Harvard Law Review 128 (2018): 2018-2039. Accessed: http://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/ForgiveForget.pdf

Guillem, Latorre, and Miguel Ángel. “Shedding the Light on Insurance Brokers’ Remuneration: the Role of the Fees.” Opción 31.2 (2015).