\u3cem\u3eMcCall v. Marine Insurance Company\u3c/em\u3e

Marine insurance contracts were one of the most important categories of federal litigation in the early nineteenth century. The increase in international conflict resulted in a corresponding increase in the risk associated with maritime activity and the number of claims insurance companies litigated in an effort to minimize losses. Accordingly, a rich body of commercial law was developed by the federal courts in which the cases were tried. One such case was McCall v. Marine Insurance Company, in which the Supreme Court determined the impact of the addition of a single unusual word in the clause that set forth the risks protected against, employing principles of the law of nations as well as principles of contractual construction

A Leap of Faith: Redesigning Teacher Compensation

Summarizes three reports: Teacher Attitudes About Compensation Reform, Returns to Skill and Teacher Wage Premiums, and Teacher Labor Markets and the Perils of Using Hedonics to Estimate Compensating Differentials in the Public Sector

The Challenges of Infrastructure Privatisation

Privatisierung, Infrastruktur, Deregulierung, Politische Reform, Privatization, Public infrastructure, Deregulation, Political reform

ESTABLISHING ‘LOSS OF POSSESSION’ IN MARINE INSURANCE CLAIMS

To what extent should insureds expect compensation on interruption to their voyage by loss of possession or free use or disposal of their property where it remains undamaged? Marine insurance does not compensate for partial losses occasioned by delay. Recent authority (Masefield v Amlin Corporate Member) confirmed an insured could not recover for an actual total loss following capture where pirates would accept ransom then release the property. Property was not an actual total loss even after condemnation by a foreign tribunal (Panamanian Oriental Steamship Corporation v Wright), although condemnation might establish constructive total loss. Where the voyage becomes impossible by detention or embargo, the insured’s right to abandon to insurers for constructive total loss may be unpredictable (eg after one year’s duration in The Bamburi). In each scenario, insurers are excused making prompt payments, and from dealing themselves with the consequences of the peril. In each the insured is either uncompensated, or at best must wait. These authorities document an evolution; historically, English and American laws allowed the insured to abandon and recover for a total loss while these perils lasted, ignoring ongoing hopes of recovery. This thesis argues that a presumption of total loss still applies to all perils causing loss of possession. This appeared first in Continental treatises and was later applied in English law. No universal test of total loss applies equally to all marine perils. Instead, situations of loss of possession should be governed by peril-specific rules, including the presumption of total loss for perils causing loss of possession

Authenticity and Admissibility of Social Media Website Printouts

Social media posts and photographs are increasingly denied admission as evidence in criminal trials. Courts often cite issues with authentication when refusing to admit social media evidence. Cases and academic writings separate recent case law into two approaches: The Maryland Approach and the Texas Approach. The first method is often seen as overly skeptical of social media evidence, setting the bar too high for admissibility. The second approach is viewed as more lenient, declaring that any reasonable evidence should be admitted in order for a jury to weigh its sufficiency. This Brief addresses the supposed differences between the two sets of cases and suggests that courts are not actually employing two distinct approaches. The Maryland Approach courts are not holding social media content to a higher standard than the Texas Approach courts, but are merely responding to a lack of evidence connecting the proffered content to the purported author

The “Nature” of Seaman Status After Sanchez

The article discusses a U.S. Supreme Court case involving welder Gilbert Sanchez who filed a complaint against his employer, Smart Fabricators of Texas LLC, after he sustained an injury at work, including information on pre-en banc proceedings and the application of seaman status jurisprudence