PUBLICATION UPDATE
Route to: M
M M M
M M M M
NEW APPLEMAN ON
INSURANCE LAW LIBRARY
EDITION
Publication 60087 Release 17 September 2017
HIGHLIGHTS
Emerging Insurance Regulation
• Ch. 8, The Framework of Insur-
ance Regulation, has new sections
on emerging areas in cyber secu-
rity and regulation of innovations
such as drones and autonomous
vehicles.
Dispute Resolution
• In Ch. 7, Dispute Resolution, now
includes discussions on subject
matter jurisdiction for a motion to
compel arbitration or to vacate an
arbitration award under the FAA
including the decision in Goldman
v. Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc.,
834 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 2016).
Insured’s Duties
• In Century Surety Co. v. Jim
Hipner LLC, 842 F.3d 606, 612
(8th Cir. 2016), applying Wyo-
ming law, an umbrella insurer was
not entitled to deny coverage
based on its insured’s failure to
provide notice of an accident “as
soon as practicable”; although the
insured did not provide timely no-
tice, the insurer was not prejudiced
by the four-month delay because it
chose not to investigate once it
received investigative materials
from a primary carrier. (See Ch.
20, Conditions and Insured’s
Duties.§ 20.01[5][c].)
Ch. 6, Choice of Law. Reports of many
new court decisions addressing a range of
choice of law issues, including:
• Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Berkley Nat’l
Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
160693 (S.D. W. Va. 2016) on the
importance of honoring the expec-
tation of the parties versus the ties
of the forum state in the choice of
law decision (see §§ 6.01[1],
6.02[2][d]).
• Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v.
Hradecky, 208 So. 3d 184 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App. 2016) on what a
party challenging a mandatory fo-
rum selection clause must estab-
lish to prevail (see § 6.01[1]).
0001 [ST: 1] [ED: 100000] [REL: 17] (Beg Group) Composed: Tue Jul 18 13:35:14 EDT 2017
XPP 9.0C.1 SP #4 PU000000 nllp 60087 [PW=477pt PD= TW=360pt TD=546pt]
VER: [PU000000-Master:29 Oct 13 02:10][MX-SECNDARY: 12 May 17 07:53][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=60087-pubup01] 0
Ch. 7, Dispute Resolution. Features re-
ports of many new court decisions address-
ing a range of issues, including:
• New § 7.03[1][a] analyzes “gate-
way issues” such as whether the
parties have agreed to arbitrate
and whether their arbitration
agreement covers a particular con-
troversy should be decided by ar-
bitrators or the courts, citing many
newly reported court decisions;
new cases on the burden of proof
at trial level and the standards of
appellate review of arbitrability
determinations; and cases where
non-signatories to an arbitration
agreement can be compelled to
participate in the arbitration.
• New § 7.03[1][b] includes discus-
sions on subject matter jurisdic-
tion for a motion to compel arbi-
tration or to vacate an arbitration
award under the FAA including
the decision in Goldman v. Citi-
group Global Mkts., Inc., 834 F.3d
242 (3d Cir. 2016).
Ch. 8, The Framework of Insurance
Regulation. This chapter is updated with
coverage of the beginning of dismantling of
Dodd-Frank under the Trump Administra-
tion (See § 8.07[10]), as well as detailed
new discussion of the regulation of cyber
security (See § 8.09), and the regulation of
innovation such as drones and driverless
vehicles (See § 8.10).
Ch. 16, Introduction to Liability Insur-
ance. In FDIC v. BancInsure, Inc., 2017
U.S. App. LEXIS 452, at *8–9 (8th Cir.
Jan. 10, 2017), the D&O policy issued by
the insurer to the bank did not cover the
FDIC’s claims against the bank’s former
directors and officers as receiver and suc-
cessor. The D&O policy’s insured-versus-
insured exclusion barred the FDIC’s claims
as the exception did not change with re-
spect to the FDIC as receiver. (See
§ 16.02[3][b][iii][B].)
In Winbrook Communication Services,
Inc. v. United States Liability Insurance
Co., 52 N.E.3d 195, 197 (Mass. Ct. App.
2016), the trial court erred in granting an
insurer summary judgment declaring it had
no obligation under a D&O policy to pay a
judgment the plaintiff obtained against the
insureds, as there was fact issue as to
whether, under the policy’s personal profit
exclusion, the insureds received any profit
or benefit to which they were not legally
entitled. (See § 16.02[3][b][iii][C].)
Ch. 17, Duty to Defend. In Water Well
Solutions Service Group Inc. v. Consoli-
dated Insurance Co., 881 N.W.2d 285, 301
(Wis. 2016), summary judgment was prop-
erly awarded to insurer in suit by insured
for breach of the duty to defend in under-
lying negligence action because the “Your
Product” exclusion in the policy applied
and no exceptions to the exclusion restored
coverage; based on the allegations set forth
in the four corners of the negligence com-
plaint, no coverage existed. (See
§ 17.01[2][a].)
Ch. 18, Duty to Indemnify—Bodily
Injury and Poperty Damage. In Naviga-
tors Specialty Ins. Co. v. Moorefield Con-
struction, Inc., 6 Cal. App. 5th 1258, 1263
(2016), a general contractor’s conduct with
respect to a flooring failure was not an
accident within the meaning of CGL poli-
cies because it was a deliberate decision
made with knowledge that the moisture
vapor emission rate from a concrete slab
exceeded specifications. (See
§ 18.02[6][b].)
In Hiland Partners GP Holdings, LLC v.
National Union Fire Insurance Co., 847
F.3d 594, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1696, at
*10–11 (8th Cir. Jan. 31, 2017), applying
0001 [ST: 1] [ED: 100000] [REL: 17] Composed: Tue Jul 18 13:35:14 EDT 2017
XPP 9.0C.1 SP #4 PU000000 nllp 60087 [PW=477pt PD= TW=360pt TD=546pt]
VER: [PU000000-Master:29 Oct 13 02:10][MX-SECNDARY: 12 May 17 07:53][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=60087-pubup01] 0
North Dakota law, in which a subcontrac-
tor’s employee was injured when conden-
sate caused an explosion, the insurer did
not have duty to defend or indemnify the
facility owner, because the allegations in
the employee’s underlying complaint fell
within the CGL policy’s pollution exclu-
sion since condensate was a contaminant.
(See § 18.08[3][c].)
Ch. 19, Duty to Indemnify—Personal
and Advertising Injury. In S. Bertram Inc.
v. Citizens Insurance Co., 2016 U.S. App.
LEXIS 15886, at *2 (6th Cir. 2016), an
insurer had no duty to defend a trademark
infringement action under a CGL policy
because the personal and advertising injury
coverage specifically excluded trademark
infringement and the complaint contained
no potential claims either for disparage-
ment or for trade dress infringement under
15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). (See § 19.03[10].)
Ch. 20, Conditions and Insured’s Du-
ties. In Century Surety Co. v. Jim Hipner
LLC, 842 F.3d 606, 612 (8th Cir. 2016),
applying Wyoming law, an umbrella in-
surer was not entitled to deny coverage
based on its insured’s failure to provide
notice of an accident “as soon as practi-
cable”; although the insured did not pro-
vide timely notice, the insurer was not
prejudiced by the four-month delay be-
cause it chose not to investigate once it
received investigative materials from a pri-
mary carrier. (See § 20.01[5][c].)
Ch. 22, Allocation of Coverage. In
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v.
Lexington Insurance Co., 845 F.3d 1330,
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 950, at *15 (10th
Cir. Jan. 19, 2017), applying Oklahoma
law, an insurer was properly granted sum-
mary judgment on a declaratory judgment
claim against another insurer when, inter
alia, the respective excessive coverage
clauses canceled each other out, the poli-
cies contained identical pro rata clauses
that required the insurers to share the loss,
and both policies protected the building
against fire damage. (See § 22.02[4][a].)
Ch. 23, Bad Faith in Liability Insur-
ance. In Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Ameri-
can Nuclear Insurers, 131 A.3d 445 (Pa.
2015), the high court held that, if an insurer
breached its duty to settle while defending
subject to a reservation of rights and the
insured accepted a reasonable settlement
offer, the insured needed to demonstrate
only that the insurer breached its duty by
failing to consent to a settlement that was
fair, reasonable, and non-collusive, rather
than demonstrating bad faith by the insurer.
(See § 23.02[6][c][ii].)
Ch. 26, Directors and Officers Insur-
ance. § 26.02 considers a case evaluating
whether an exclusion for prior litigation
with a date years before the policy was in
place, yet different than the dates within the
claims period, renders the policy ambigu-
ous. RSUI Indemnity Co. v. Attorney’s Title
Inc. Fund, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
97088 (M.D. Fla. June 6, 2016).
Ch. 27, Environmental Insurance.
§ 27.01[6][a] includes new Louisiana prec-
edent analyzing how a Total Pollution Ex-
clusion provision is to be interpreted. Ha-
nover Ins. Co. v. Superior Labor Services,
Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47761 (E.D.
La. April 8, 2016). Also, the Supreme
Court of New York discusses what policy
language is an indication that an all sums
allocation is appropriate in § 27.01[8][a], In
the Matter of Viking Pump, Inc., 27 N.Y. 3d
244 (N.Y. 2016) (on cert by the Delaware
Supreme Court).
Ch. 28, Employment Practices Liabil-
ity Insurance. An issue ripe for adjudica-
tion is whether an insurer’s duty to defend
under an EPL policy extends to requiring it
to indemnify counterclaims brought by the
0001 [ST: 1] [ED: 100000] [REL: 17] Composed: Tue Jul 18 13:35:14 EDT 2017
XPP 9.0C.1 SP #4 PU000000 nllp 60087 [PW=477pt PD= TW=360pt TD=546pt]
VER: [PU000000-Master:29 Oct 13 02:10][MX-SECNDARY: 12 May 17 07:53][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=60087-pubup01] 0
insured. Read about the First Circuit’s cer-
tification in Mt. Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v.
Vision Aid Inc., 825 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2016),
§ 28.05[7][a].
Ch. 29, Cyber Insurance. In
§ 29.03[3][a] the Fifth Circuit weighed in
on whether a company that sent $7 million
to a “new address” (which turned out to be
fraudulent) after receiving an email with a
letterhead authorization attached, is cov-
ered by a Computer Fraud provision in a
Crime Protection Insurance Policy. Apache
Corp. v. Great American Ins. Co., 2016
U.S. App. LEXIS 18748 (5th Cir. Oct. 18,
2016).
Ch. 30, Intellectual Property Insur-
ance. This chapter is heavily updated in
this release. There is new discussion in
§ 30.05[3][a] on policies that preclude cov-
erage where false advertising injuries are
alleged in the same matter as an intellectual
property injury, including cases from two
jurisdictions, Vitamin Health, Inc. v. Hart-
ford Cas. Ins. Co., 186 F. Supp. 3d 712
(E.D. Mich. 2017); and Hanover Ins. Co. v.
Anova Food, LLC, 2016 US. Dist. LEXIS
84734 (D. Haw. June 29, 2016) (applying
Florida law).
Ch. 31, Media Liability Insurance.
§ 31.03[3] considers how settlement lan-
guage can dictate insured’s ability to re-
cover indemnification for advertising inju-
ries if the settlement fails to distinguish
between covered and non-covered claims,
reviewing Hanover Ins. Co. v. Anova Food,
LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84734 (D.
Haw. June 29, 2016); Highland Holdings,
Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81851 (M.D. Fla. June
23, 2016).
Ch. 32, Mergers and Acquisitions In-
surance. This update looks at how a court
considers the insured’s “reasonable expec-
tations” when deciding whether a policy
covered the acquisition of a specific com-
pany when a bump-up endorsement specifi-
cally said it did not. See § 32.02[5][b].
Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Arch Ins. Co.,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174026 (E.D. Penn.
Dec. 16, 2016).
Ch. 41, Introductory Matters in Prop-
erty Insurance. In Philadelphia Indemnity
Insurance Co. v. Lexington Insurance Co.,
845 F.3d 1330, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS
950, at *15 (10th Cir. Jan. 19, 2017),
applying Oklahoma law, an insurer was
properly granted summary judgment on a
declaratory judgment claim against another
insurer when, inter alia, the respective ex-
cess coverage clauses canceled each other
out, the policies contained identical pro rata
clauses that required the insurers to share
the loss, and both policies protected the
building against fire damage. (See
§ 41.02[4][c][ii].)
Ch. 42, Determining Coverage in
Property Insurance Policies. In State
Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Moss, 338
Ga. App. 684, 688 (2016), because the
rental of the insured’s property was not
“occasional,” having been based on a
month-to-month lease with no end date, the
exclusion in the subject insurance policy,
excluding coverage for bodily injury aris-
ing out of rental of premises, applied and
the trial court erred in denying the insurer’s
motion for summary judgment on that ba-
sis. (See § 42.03[2][b][iv].)
Ch. 43, Exclusions in Property Insur-
ance Policies. In Celebration Church, Inc.
v. United National Insurance Co., 2016
U.S. App. LEXIS 16061, at *4–5 (5th Cir.
Aug. 30, 2016), applying Louisiana law,
precious metals exclusion in the insurance
unambiguously applied; numerous wit-
nesses testified that the stolen condenser
coils were either copper or aluminum, both
of which were explicitly listed in the exclu-
0001 [ST: 1] [ED: 100000] [REL: 17] Composed: Tue Jul 18 13:35:14 EDT 2017
XPP 9.0C.1 SP #4 PU000000 nllp 60087 [PW=477pt PD= TW=360pt TD=546pt]
VER: [PU000000-Master:29 Oct 13 02:10][MX-SECNDARY: 12 May 17 07:53][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=60087-pubup01] 0
sion. (See § 43.03[9][b].)
Ch. 44, The Causation Question in
Property Insurance. In Ideaitalia Con-
temporary Furniture Corp. v. Selective Ins.
Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172909, at *12
(W.D.N.C. Dec. 14, 2016), in which storm
water entered a warehouse on the insured
property and damaged goods stored inside,
the plain language of the policy excluded
flood or surface water damage, even if
another covered peril, such as water from
below the surface, concurrently contributed
to the damage, and North Carolina recog-
nizes and regularly enforces anti-
concurrent causation clauses. (See
§ 44.04[6][c].)
Ch. 45, Additional and Supplemental
Property Insurance Coverages. In
AMTRAK v. Aspen Specialty Insurance
Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16074 (2d Cir.
Aug. 31, 2016), the definitions of “flood” in
the policies at issue were not ambiguous as
the first two definitions of flood were suf-
ficiently broad to include an inundation of
seawater driven by storm surge or a wind
storm under their plain meaning; the third
definition explicitly included sea surge and
wind driven water. (See § 45.08[2][a].)
Ch. 46, Time Element (Business Inter-
ruption) Insurance. In Ochsner Clinic
Foundation v. Lexington Insurance Co.,
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198, at *31–32
(E.D. La. Jan. 3, 2017), applying Louisiana
law, the insured provided sufficient evi-
dence, including expert testimony, projec-
tions, industry surveys, and actual financial
data, to establish “with reasonable cer-
tainty” its claim for business interruption
damages and thus to preclude summary
judgment on this issue; while the insurer
alleged several flaws in the insured’s meth-
odology and calculations, those factual dis-
putes were suitable issues for trial and more
properly addressed through cross-
examination. (See § 46.09.)
Ch. 48, Property Insurance Dispute
Resolution. In Noa v. Florida Ins. Guar-
anty Ass’n, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3787, at
*1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Mar. 22, 2017), a
post-appraisal submission of higher costs
was not a basis for a new appraisal because
the appraisers indicated awareness of the
ordinance and law coverage; a notation on
the award that there was no allowance for
effects of law and ordinance indicated that
the panel found building code requirements
did not require replacement of the whole
roof. (See § 48.03[3][a].)
Ch. 49, The Right of Subrogation. In
Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Deming, 828 F.3d
19, 20–21 (1st Cir. 2016), an insurer was
not subject to a waiver of subrogation and
could pursue claims against the tenant who
damaged the insured condo because allow-
ing the insurer to recover from the tenant
after its insured breached his obligation to
obtain insurance containing a waiver of
subrogation was entirely consistent with
the plain language of both the insurance
policy and condo bylaws. (See 49.04[5].)
Ch. 50, Builder’s Risk Insurance. In
Fontana Builders, Inc. v. Assurance Co. of
America, 882 N.W.2d 398, 400–401 (Wis.
2016), the homeowner’s policy issued to
the purchasers of the home, who happened
to be the builder and his wife, did not apply
so as to terminate a builder’s risk policy
from the insurer; legally distinct entities
had different interests in the property. (See
§ 50.01[4][e].)
Ch. 51, Boiler and Machinery Insur-
ance. In Wisconsin Local Government
Property Insurance Fund v. Lexington In-
surance Co., 840 F.3d 411, 418 (7th Cir.
2016), applying Wisconsin law, after a fire
at a courthouse, the primary insurer for the
courthouse and the insurer providing cov-
erage for machinery and equipment at the
0001 [ST: 1] [ED: 100000] [REL: 17] Composed: Tue Jul 18 13:35:14 EDT 2017
XPP 9.0C.1 SP #4 PU000000 nllp 60087 [PW=477pt PD= TW=360pt TD=546pt]
VER: [PU000000-Master:29 Oct 13 02:10][MX-SECNDARY: 12 May 17 07:53][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=60087-pubup01] 0
courthouse, agreed to arbitrate under their
respective Joint Loss Agreement (JLAs)
their dispute as to how certain payments
should be allotted between the two of them.
The primary insurer’s excess insurer or
reinsurer did not satisfy the prerequisites
under the primary insurer’s JLA, and, thus,
the court denied that insurer’s motion to
compel its inclusion in the arbitration. (See
§ 51.07[3][a].)
Ch. 51A, Marine Insurance. In Hart-
ford Fire Insurance Co. v. Harborview
Marina & Yacht Club Community Ass’n,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170438, at *18–22
(D. Md. Dec. 9, 2016), involving a dispute
over coverage for a collapsed pier, the
policy at issue was not a maritime contract;
the policy’s primary objective was to insure
land-based property against property dam-
age. (See § 51A.01[2].)
Ch. 53, Homeowner’s Insurance. In
Johnson v. GeoVera Specialty Insurance
Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17530, at *2
(5th Cir. Sept. 27, 2016), an insurance
coverage dispute arising from fire damage
to a home, the insured eliminated the insur-
er’s coverage duty under the homeowner’s
insurance policies by breaching the coop-
eration clauses as she altered the state of
the house before the insurance agent could
appraise it. (See § 53.01[9][c].)
Ch. 54, Title Insurance. In Marchetti v.
Chicago Title Insurance Co., 829 F.3d 498,
500 (7th Cir. 2016), summary judgment
was properly granted in favor of a title
insurance company since the loss appel-
lants suffered, when the title was found to
be fraudulent, was zero, because the appel-
lants had no equity interest in the property;
they suffered no capital loss, and that was
all the title insurance company promised to
make good. (See § 54.04[1][a].)
Ch. 55, Bad Faith in the Context of
First-Party Insurance. In 25 Bay Terrace
Assocs., L.P. v Public Service Mutual In-
surance Co., 40 N.Y.S.3d 469, 471–472
(N.Y. App. Div. 2016), the insured suffi-
ciently pleaded a breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing
because the insured submitted evidence
that the insurer’s adjustor stated that water
had infiltrated the building as the result of a
hurricane and the loss was completely cov-
ered under the policy, and, subsequent to
that representation, the insurer sent an en-
gineer to inspect the building for the sole
purpose of preparing a report, which was
factually inaccurate, to support its denial of
the entire claim. (See § 55.04[2][c][ii].)
Ch. 56, Crop Insurance. In Spring
Creek Farming Co. v. Federal Crop Insur-
ance Corp., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11844,
at *1–2 (11th Cir. June 29, 2016), a peanut
farmer’s crop insurance claim in which the
Risk Management Agency (RMA) upheld
the regional office’s finding that drought
was not the cause of the loss, the district
court, in reviewing the RMA decision, did
not err in granting summary judgment for
the defendants; the RMA did not act arbi-
trarily and capriciously by considering
weather data that approximated rainfall for
areas between weather stations when actual
rainfall collection data was unavailable.
(See § 56.05[2].)
Ch. 57, Flood Insurance. The chapter
includes discussion that a New Jersey fed-
eral court adopted a four-part test for dem-
onstrating flood-related erosion. (See
§ 57.09[5].) Also added is a new discussion
that NFIA preemption has been extended to
claims based on federal statutes. (See
§ 57.26[9].)
Ch. 61, General Principles and Intro-
ductory Matters in Motor Vehicle Insur-
ance Law. In Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co.
v. Estate of Cossitt, 2016 Tenn. App.
LEXIS 984, a household exclusion in an
0001 [ST: 1] [ED: 100000] [REL: 17] Composed: Tue Jul 18 13:35:14 EDT 2017
XPP 9.0C.1 SP #4 PU000000 nllp 60087 [PW=477pt PD= TW=360pt TD=546pt]
VER: [PU000000-Master:29 Oct 13 02:10][MX-SECNDARY: 12 May 17 07:53][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=60087-pubup01] 0
automobile insurance policy did not apply
because the defendant was not residing in
the insured’s household at the time of the
accident. (See § 61.02[3][c][iii]).
In State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v.
Bailey, 203 So. 3d 995 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
2016), an employee who had exited a truck
30 minutes before being struck and who
was standing at least 10 feet from the
insured truck was not “occupying” the
truck for purposes of uninsured motorist
(UM) coverage. The policy defined the
term occupying as “in, on, entering or
alighting from” the insured truck. (See
§ 61.03[2][ii]).
Ch. 62, Physical Damage Coverage for
Motor Vehicles (Collision, Comprehen-
sive and Named-Perils Coverages). In
California, automobile physical damage
coverage includes all coverage for loss or
damage to an automobile insured under the
policy except loss or damage resulting from
collision or upset. Automobile collision
coverage includes all coverage of loss or
damage to an automobile insured under the
policy resulting from collision or upset.
Cal. Ins. Code § 660. (See § 62.02[2][a]).
Ch. 63, Automobile Liability Insur-
ance. Two new important surveys have
been added. § 63.06[13], Jurisdictional
Survey of Application of For Hire Exclu-
sion to Transportation Network Providers,
and § 63.06[14], Jurisdictional Survey of
Statutes Requiring that Transportation Net-
work Providers Provide Coverage.
Ch. 64, Medical Payments Coverage.
In Wisconsin, the term “motor vehicle”
does not include trailers, semitrailers, all-
terrain vehicles, utility terrain vehicles, or
limited use off-highway motorcycles. Wis.
Stat. § 344.61. (See § 64.03[1]).
A few jurisdictions allow recovery of
medical payments coverage for pre-
arranged rides with a transportation net-
work provider. (See § 64.03[2]).
Ch. 65, Uninsured and Underinsured
Motorist Coverage. In Petty v. Federated
Mut. Ins. Co., 2016 PA Super 285, the
alleged waiver of underinsured motorist
(UIM) coverage specifically complied with
the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility
Law, 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1731, and in fact
contained a verbatim recitation of the lan-
guage used in the statute. (See
§ 65.01[3][b]).
In Johnson v. First Acceptance Ins. Co.,
2017 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 4, the court
denied the insurer’s motion for summary
judgment because there was a factual dis-
pute as to whether the insured electroni-
cally signed the part of the insurance appli-
cation that waived underinsured motorist
(UIM) coverage. (See § 65.01[3][b]).
Ch. 66, No-Fault Insurance. In New
York, subjective complaints alone are not
sufficient to defeat summary judgment. The
plaintiff must provide “objective proof of
an injury.” The plaintiff must offer admis-
sible evidence in the form of sworn medical
records, such as magnetic resonance imag-
ing (MRI) reports, and sworn affidavits or
reports by physicians. Unsworn letters or
medical reports are inadmissible, and may
not be considered. Kim v. Rodriguez, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153246 (E.D.N.Y. 2016).
(See § 66.03[3][c][iv]).
In Hall v. Miko, 499 Mich. 889 (2016),
the Michigan Supreme Court declined to
reconsider the no-fault statute’s “serious
impairment” threshold for tort liability as
construed by McCormick v. Carrier, 487
Mich. 180, 795 N.W.2d 517, 534
(2010).The appellate court, Hall v. Miko,
2015 Mich. App. LEXIS 1407, determined
that in evaluating serious impairment of a
body function the correct inquiry is
whether there has been an influence on the
person’s capacity to live in her normal
0001 [ST: 1] [ED: 100000] [REL: 17] Composed: Tue Jul 18 13:35:14 EDT 2017
XPP 9.0C.1 SP #4 PU000000 nllp 60087 [PW=477pt PD= TW=360pt TD=546pt]
VER: [PU000000-Master:29 Oct 13 02:10][MX-SECNDARY: 12 May 17 07:53][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=60087-pubup01] 0
manner of living. The no-fault statute only
requires that some of the person’s ability to
live in his or her normal manner of living
has been affected, not that some of the
person’s normal manner of living has itself
been affected. It was enough that the in-
sureds presented evidence to establish that
some of their general ability to lead their
normal lives had been affected. Given the
evidence presented by the insureds demon-
strating that some of their general ability to
lead their normal lives had been affected,
the trial court erred by granting summary
disposition to the insurer. (See
§ 66.03[3][c][viii]).
Ch. 67, Business-Owned Vehicles In-
surance. In Farris v. Ohio Sec. Ins. Co.,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175072 (D. Colo.
2016), the court rejected the plaintiff’s
argument that the policy should be re-
formed to afford UIM coverage to a class of
insureds coextensive with the class of in-
sured covered under the liability provision
of the policy. The plaintiff sought coverage
for a person who died in a single vehicle
accident while riding on the back of an
ATV. The accident was not business re-
lated, the ATV was not insured under the
policy, and the driver of the ATV had no
connection to the business. (See
§ 67.02[4][h]).
Illinois does not have a strong public
policy against underinsured motorist (UIM)
step-downs. In James v. SCR Med. Transp.,
Inc., 61 N.E.3d 1043 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016),
the insurer denied a van driver’s claim
because the UIM coverage was limited to
$50,000, which was the amount the van
driver had already received from the other
driver, meaning that he was not “underin-
sured” within the meaning of the policy.
After receiving the $50,000 limit of the
other motorist’s insurance coverage and a
$28,608 settlement in workers’ compensa-
tion benefits from his own employer, the
van driver requested UIM coverage from
his employer’s business automobile liabil-
ity insurer. The insurance form executed by
the employer that reduced its $1,000,000
liability coverage to $50,000 for UIM and
UM coverage did not violate public policy.
(See § 67.04[2][a]).
Ch. 68, Garage Owners’ Insurance. In
Acceptance Indem. Ins. Co. v. JJA Auto
Sales, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16068
(E.D. Pa. 2017), the tortfeasor struck a
pedestrian while driving a vehicle that he
had purchased from the defendant auto
sales company. The tortfeasor was not
using the vehicle in connection with the
defendant’s business at that time. The ga-
rage policy insurer had no duty to defend
because the policy insured the defendant
against automobile accidents resulting from
“garage operations,” which includes the
ownership, maintenance or use of the cov-
ered ‘autos’ and all operations necessary or
incidental to a garage business). (See
§ 68.03[1][ii]).
Ch. 69, Truckers’ and Motor Carriers’
Commercial Vehicle Insurance. In Nat’l
Specialty Ins. Co. v. Martin-Vegue, 2016
U.S. App. LEXIS 3317 (11th Cir. 2016),
the court noted that an MCS-90 endorse-
ment is an endorsement added to trucker’s
insurance to satisfy federal motor carrier
regulations requiring minimum levels of
financial responsibility. (See § 69.01
[2][a]). The MCS-90 endorsement is a
federally mandated insurance endorsement,
and thus federal law, not state law, governs
its interpretation and application. The
MCS-90 endorsement covers liability for a
motor carrier’s negligence only when the
liability arises while the motor carrier’s
vehicle involved in the accident is engaged
in the transportation of property in inter-
state commerce at the time the accident
occurs. Martinez v. Empire Fire & Marine
Ins. Co., 322 Conn. 47 (2016). (See
0001 [ST: 1] [ED: 100000] [REL: 17] Composed: Tue Jul 18 13:35:14 EDT 2017
XPP 9.0C.1 SP #4 PU000000 nllp 60087 [PW=477pt PD= TW=360pt TD=546pt]
VER: [PU000000-Master:29 Oct 13 02:10][MX-SECNDARY: 12 May 17 07:53][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=60087-pubup01] 0
§ 69.01[2] [d]).
49 U.S.C. § 14504a does not purport to
impose any limitation on the ability of a
state to determine whether a plaintiff
should be able to seek direct liability
against an insurer of motor carriers as a
matter of state law. Miller v. Jackson, 2016
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50225 (E.D. Okla. 2016).
(See § 69.01[2] [d]).
The Carmack Amendment is the exclu-
sive cause of action for interstate-shipping
contract claims alleging loss or damage to
property. The Carmack Amendment consti-
tutes a complete defense to common law
claims alleging all manner of harms arising
from loss of cargo in interstate shipping).
Kidd v. Am. Reliable Ins. Co., 2016 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 118960 (C.D. Cal. 2016). (See
§ 69.01[2][d]).
Placard liability operates to hold feder-
ally authorized carriers, which are licensed
by the DOT and display their DOT num-
bers on their truck, vicariously liable for the
negligence of drivers operating under a
lease. Coffman v. Dutch Farms, Inc., 2017
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26827 (N.D. Ind. 2017).
(See § 69.02[9]).
Matthew Bender provides continuing customer
support for all its products:
• Editorial assistance—please consult the
“Questions About This Publication” direc-
tory printed on the copyright page;
• Customer Service—missing pages, ship-
ments, billing or other customer service
matters, +1.800.833.9844.
• Outside the United States and Canada,
+1.937.247.0293, or fax (+1.800.828.8341)
• Toll-free ordering (+1.800.223.1940) or visit
www.lexisnexis.com/BrowseUs.
www.lexis.com
Copyright © 2017 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group.
Publication 60087, Release 17, September 2017
LexisNexis, the knowledge burst logo, and Michie are trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under
license. Matthew Bender is a registered trademark of Matthew Bender Properties Inc.
0001 [ST: 1] [ED: 100000] [REL: 17] Composed: Tue Jul 18 13:35:14 EDT 2017
XPP 9.0C.1 SP #4 PU000000 nllp 60087 [PW=477pt PD= TW=360pt TD=546pt]
VER: [PU000000-Master:29 Oct 13 02:10][MX-SECNDARY: 12 May 17 07:53][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=60087-pubup01] 0
0001 [ST: 1] [ED: 100000] [REL: 17] Composed: Tue Jul 18 13:35:14 EDT 2017
XPP 9.0C.1 SP #4 PU000000 nllp 60087 [PW=477pt PD= TW=360pt TD=546pt]
VER: [PU000000-Master:29 Oct 13 02:10][MX-SECNDARY: 12 May 17 07:53][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=60087-pubup01] 0
FILING INSTRUCTIONS
New Appleman on Insurance Law
Library Edition
Publication 60087 Release 17 September 2017
Check
As
Done
□ 1. Check the Title page in the front of your present Volume 1. It should indicate that your set is filed
through Release Number 16. If the set is current, proceed with the filing of this release. If your set is
not filed through Release Number 16, DO NOT file this release. Please call Customer Services at
1-800-833-9844 for assistance in bringing your set up to date.
□ 2. This Release Number 17 contains 3 packages.
• Package 1 contains White Revision pages for Volumes 1 and 2.
• Package 2 contains White Revision pages for Volumes 3 and 4.
• Package 3 contains White Revision pages for Volumes 5 and 6.
□ Arrange these groups of material next to each other so that you can take material from each group as
required and proceed with the filing of this release.
□ 3. Circulate the “Publication Update” among those individuals interested in the contents of this release.
FI–1
0001 [ST: 1] [ED: 100000] [REL: 17] (Beg Group) Composed: Wed Aug 2 17:31:22 EDT 2017
XPP 9.0C.1 SP #4 FI000000 nllp 60087 [PW=473pt PD=684pt TW=360pt TD=546pt]
VER: [FI000000-Master:23 Aug 08 10:45][MX-SECNDARY: 12 May 17 07:53][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=60087-fi017.xml] 0
Check Remove Old Insert New
As Pages Numbered Pages Numbered
Done
For faster and easier filing, all references are to right-hand pages only.
VOLUME 1
Revision
□ Title page thru xvii
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Title page thru xvii
□ 1-1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1-1
□ 1-11 thru 1-13
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1-11 thru 1-14.1
□ 1-29 thru 1-47
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1-29 thru 1-48.1
□ 1-67 thru 1-73
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1-67 thru 1-74.1
□ 1-80.1 thru 1-80.7
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
1-80.1 thru 1-80.9
□ 1A-1 thru 1A-21
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
1A-1 thru 1A-21
□ 2-1 thru 2-41
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-1 thru 2-39
□ 2-57
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-57 thru 2-58.1
□ 3-1 thru 3-25
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3-1 thru 3-25
□ 3-39 thru 3-48.2(7)
. . . . . . . . . . . .
3-39 thru 3-48.2(7)
□ 3-71 thru 3-77
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3-71 thru 3-78.1
□ 3-91
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3-91
□ 4-1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-1
□ 4-23 thru 4-31
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-23 thru 4-32.1
□ 4-45 thru 4-57
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-45 thru 4-57
□ 4-67 thru 4-69
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-67 thru 4-70.1
□ 4-83
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-83 thru 4-84.1
□ 5-1 thru 5-37
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5-1 thru 5-37
□ 5-47 thru 5-57
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5-47 thru 5-57
□ 6-1 thru 6-27
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6-1 thru 6-28.1
□ 6-37 thru 6-39
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6-37 thru 6-40.1
□ 7-1 thru 7-109
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7-1 thru 7-117
□ I-1 thru I-25
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I-1 thru I-25
VOLUME 2
Revision
□ Title page thru xi
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Title page thru xi
□ 8-1 thru 8-101
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8-1 thru 8-111
□ 9-1 thru 9-73
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9-1 thru 9-65
□ 10-1 thru 10-15
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10-1 thru 10-13
□ 10-25 thru 10-77
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
10-25 thru 10-77
□ 11-1 thru 11-47
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11-1 thru 11-47
□ 13-1 thru 13-95
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13-1 thru 13-131
□ 14-1 thru 14-59
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14-1 thru 14-59
□ 15-1 thru 15-81
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15-1 thru 15-79
□ 15A-1 thru 15A-27
. . . . . . . . . . . .
15A-1 thru 15A-29
□ I-1 thru I-25
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I-1 thru I-25
FI–2
0001 [ST: 1] [ED: 100000] [REL: 17] Composed: Wed Aug 2 17:31:22 EDT 2017
XPP 9.0C.1 SP #4 FI000000 nllp 60087 [PW=473pt PD=684pt TW=360pt TD=546pt]
VER: [FI000000-Master:23 Aug 08 10:45][MX-SECNDARY: 12 May 17 07:53][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=60087-fi017.xml] 0
Check Remove Old Insert New
As Pages Numbered Pages Numbered
Done
VOLUME 3
Revision
□ Title page thru xi
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Title page thru xi
□ 16-1 thru 16-11
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16-1
□ 16-35
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16-35 thru 16-36.1
□ 16-57
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16-57 thru 16-58.1
□ 16-186.2(1) thru 16-186.2(3)
. . . . . . . .
16-186.2(1) thru 16-186.2(5)
□ 16-199 thru 16-200.1
. . . . . . . . . . .
16-199
□ 16A-1 thru 16A-5
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
16A-1
□ 16A-81
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16A-81 thru 16A-82.1
□ 16A-149
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16A-149 thru 16A-150.1
□ 16A-173
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16A-173 thru 16A-174.1
□ 17-1 thru 17-17
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17-1 thru 17-17
□ 18-1 thru 18-3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18-1
□ 18-25 thru 18-29
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
18-25 thru 18-30.1
□ 18-65
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18-65 thru 18-66.1
□ 18-90.1 thru 18-95
. . . . . . . . . . . .
18-91 thru 18-96.1
□ 19-1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19-1
□ 19-19 thru 19-23
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
19-19 thru 19-24.1
□ 20-1 thru 20-3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20-1
□ 20-13
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20-13 thru 20-14.1
□ 20-25 thru 20-29
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
20-25 thru 20-30.1
□ 21-1 thru 21-7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21-1 thru 21-7
□ 21-23
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21-23 thru 21-24.1
□ 21-32.1 thru 21-35
. . . . . . . . . . . .
21-33 thru 21-36.1
□ 22-1 thru 22-21
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22-1 thru 22-19
□ 22-31 thru 22-55
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
22-31 thru 22-55
□ 23-1 thru 23-7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23-1 thru 23-3
□ 23-43 thru 23-45
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
23-43 thru 23-45
□ 23-59 thru 23-61
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
23-59 thru 23-61
□ 23-74.1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23-74.1
□ 23-95 thru 23-105
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
23-95 thru 23-106.1
□ 23-133 thru 23-136.3
. . . . . . . . . . .
23-133 thru 23-136.3
VOLUME 4
Revision
□ Title page thru xi
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Title page thru xi
□ 24-1 thru 24-31
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24-1 thru 24-27
□ 24-49 thru 24-51
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
24-49 thru 24-52.1
□ 24-69 thru 24-101
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
24-69 thru 24-101
□ 25-1 thru 25-3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25-1 thru 25-3
□ 25-15 thru 25-19
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
25-15 thru 25-20.1
FI–3
0001 [ST: 1] [ED: 100000] [REL: 17] Composed: Wed Aug 2 17:31:22 EDT 2017
XPP 9.0C.1 SP #4 FI000000 nllp 60087 [PW=473pt PD=684pt TW=360pt TD=546pt]
VER: [FI000000-Master:23 Aug 08 10:45][MX-SECNDARY: 12 May 17 07:53][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=60087-fi017.xml] 0
Check Remove Old Insert New
As Pages Numbered Pages Numbered
Done
□ 25-37 thru 25-43
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
25-37 thru 25-44.1
□ 25-71 thru 25-75
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
25-71 thru 25-76.1
□ 25-111 thru 25-113
. . . . . . . . . . . .
25-111 thru 25-113
□ 26-1 thru 26-15
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26-1 thru 26-15
□ 26-25 thru 26-56.9
. . . . . . . . . . . .
26-25 thru 26-56.11
□ 26-67
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26-67
□ 27-1 thru 27-7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27-1
□ 27-19 thru 27-21
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
27-19 thru 27-21
□ 27-31 thru 27-51
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
27-31 thru 27-51
□ 27-63 thru 27-73
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
27-63 thru 27-74.1
□ 27-93 thru 27-97
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
27-93 thru 27-98.1
□ 28-1 thru 28-11
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28-1 thru 28-9
□ 28-21 thru 28-31
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
28-21 thru 28-32.1
□ 28-43
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28-43 thru 28-44.1
□ 28-63 thru 28-67
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
28-63 thru 28-68.1
□ 28-79
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28-79 thru 28-80.1
□ 28-91 thru 28-95
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
28-91 thru 28-96.1
□ 29-1 thru 29-13
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29-1 thru 29-11
□ 29-33 thru 29-49
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
29-33 thru 29-50.1
□ 29-61
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29-61 thru 29-62.1
□ 30-1 thru 30-159
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
30-1 thru 30-153
□ 31-1 thru 31-65
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31-1 thru 31-65
□ 32-1 thru 32-9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32-1 thru 32-3
□ 32-27 thru 32-29
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
32-27 thru 32-30.1
□ 33-1 thru 33-63
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33-1 thru 33-64.3
□ 34-1 thru 34-23
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34-1 thru 34-23
□ 34-35
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34-35 thru 34-36.1
□ 34-53 thru 34-55
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
34-53 thru 34-55
□ 36-1 thru 36-39
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36-1 thru 36-37
□ 36-49
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36-49 thru 36-50.1
□ 36-63 thru 36-71
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
36-63 thru 36-72.1
□ 36-81 thru 36-85
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
36-81 thru 36-85
□ I-1 thru I-37
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I-1 thru I-37
VOLUME 5
Revision
□ Title page thru xv
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Title page thru xv
□ 41-1 thru 41-4.1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41-1 thru 41-3
□ 41-13
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41-13 thru 41-14.1
□ 41-25
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41-25 thru 41-26.1
□ 41-53 thru 41-55
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
41-53 thru 41-55
□ 41-107 thru 41-113
. . . . . . . . . . . .
41-107 thru 41-113
□ 42-1 thru 42-61
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42-1 thru 42-61
□ 42-83 thru 42-85
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
42-83 thru 42-86.1
FI–4
0001 [ST: 1] [ED: 100000] [REL: 17] Composed: Wed Aug 2 17:31:22 EDT 2017
XPP 9.0C.1 SP #4 FI000000 nllp 60087 [PW=473pt PD=684pt TW=360pt TD=546pt]
VER: [FI000000-Master:23 Aug 08 10:45][MX-SECNDARY: 12 May 17 07:53][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=60087-fi017.xml] 0
Check Remove Old Insert New
As Pages Numbered Pages Numbered
Done
□ 42-101
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42-101 thru 42-102.1
□ 43-1 thru 43-3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43-1
□ 43-33
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43-33 thru 43-34.1
□ 43-51 thru 43-55
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
43-51 thru 43-55
□ 44-1 thru 44-5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44-1 thru 44-5
□ 44-35 thru 44-41
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
44-35 thru 44-42.1
□ 44-50.1 thru 44-51
. . . . . . . . . . . .
44-51 thru 44-52.1
□ 45-1 thru 45-13
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45-1 thru 45-9
□ 45-25
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45-25
□ 45-57 thru 45-59
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
45-57 thru 45-60.1
□ 46-1 thru 46-17
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46-1 thru 46-7
□ 46-79
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46-79
□ 47-1 thru 47-8.1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
47-1
□ 47-25
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
47-25 thru 47-26.1
□ 47-49
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
47-49 thru 47-50.1
□ 48-1 thru 48-15
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
48-1 thru 48-13
□ 49-1 thru 49-37
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
49-1 thru 49-31
□ 49-47
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
49-47
□ 49-59 thru 49-75
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
49-59 thru 49-77
□ 50-1 thru 50-5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50-1 thru 50-3
□ 50-23 thru 50-43
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
50-23 thru 50-44.1
□ 51-1 thru 51-7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51-1
□ 51-27 thru 51-75
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
51-27 thru 51-75
□ 52-1 thru 52-35
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52-1 thru 52-27
□ 53-1 thru 53-9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53-1
□ 53-29
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53-29 thru 53-30.1
□ 53-49 thru 53-61
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
53-49 thru 53-62.1
□ 53-75
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53-75 thru 53-76.1
□ 53-103 thru 53-111
. . . . . . . . . . . .
53-103 thru 53-112.1
□ 53-127 thru 53-141
. . . . . . . . . . . .
53-127 thru 53-142.1
□ 54-1 thru 54-7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
54-1 thru 54-3
□ 54-19
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
54-19 thru 54-20.1
□ 54-31
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
54-31 thru 54-32.1
□ 54-51 thru 54-55
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
54-51 thru 54-57
□ 55-1 thru 55-67
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55-1 thru 55-63
□ 55-87 thru 55-105
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
55-87 thru 55-105
□ 56-1 thru 56-13
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56-1 thru 56-11
□ 56-31 thru 56-45
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
56-31 thru 56-45
□ 57-1 thru 57-17
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57-1 thru 57-13
□ 57-29
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57-29 thru 57-30.1
□ 57-49 thru 57-67
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
57-49 thru 57-68.1
□ 57-83 thru 57-143
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
57-83 thru 57-149
□ 58-1 thru 58-3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58-1
□ I-1 thru I-55
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I-1 thru I-55
FI–5
0001 [ST: 1] [ED: 100000] [REL: 17] Composed: Wed Aug 2 17:31:23 EDT 2017
XPP 9.0C.1 SP #4 FI000000 nllp 60087 [PW=473pt PD=684pt TW=360pt TD=546pt]
VER: [FI000000-Master:23 Aug 08 10:45][MX-SECNDARY: 12 May 17 07:53][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=60087-fi017.xml] 0
Check Remove Old Insert New
As Pages Numbered Pages Numbered
Done
VOLUME 6
Revision
□ Title page thru xi
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Title page thru xi
□ 61-1 thru 61-95
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
61-1 thru 61-87
□ 62-1 thru 62-137
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
62-1 thru 62-131
□ 63-1 thru 63-93
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
63-1 thru 63-101
□ 64-1 thru 64-59
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
64-1 thru 64-57
□ 65-1 thru 65-101
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
65-1 thru 65-97
□ 66-1 thru 66-85
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
66-1 thru 66-85
□ 67-1 thru 67-41
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67-1 thru 67-37
□ 68-1 thru 68-9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
68-1 thru 68-7
□ 68-19 thru 68-33
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
68-19 thru 68-33
□ 68-45 thru 68-59
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
68-45 thru 68-59
□ 69-1 thru 69-25
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
69-1 thru 69-21
□ 69-35 thru 69-149
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
69-35 thru 69-145
□ I-1 thru I-27
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I-1 thru I-27
FI–6
0001 [ST: 1] [ED: 100000] [REL: 17] Composed: Wed Aug 2 17:31:23 EDT 2017
XPP 9.0C.1 SP #4 FI000000 nllp 60087 [PW=473pt PD=684pt TW=360pt TD=546pt]
VER: [FI000000-Master:23 Aug 08 10:45][MX-SECNDARY: 12 May 17 07:53][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=60087-fi017.xml] 0
FILE IN THE FRONT OF THE FIRST VOLUME
OF YOUR SET
To order missing pages log on to our self service center, www.lexisnexis.com/printcdsc or
call Customer Services at 1 (800) 833-9844 and have the following information ready:
(1) the publication title;
(2) specific volume, chapter and page numbers; and
(3) your name, phone number, and Matthew Bender account number.
Please recycle removed pages.
MISSING FILING INSTRUCTIONS?
FIND THEM AT www.lexisnexis.com/printcdsc
Use the search tool provided to find and download missing filing instructions,
or sign on to the Print & CD Service Center to order missing pages or
replacement materials. Visit us soon to see what else
the Print & CD Service Center can do for you!
www.lexis.com
Copyright © 2017 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group.
Publication 60087, Release 17, September 2017
LexisNexis, the knowledge burst logo, and Michie are trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under
license. Matthew Bender is a registered trademark of Matthew Bender Properties Inc.
FI–7
0001 [ST: 1] [ED: 100000] [REL: 17] Composed: Wed Aug 2 17:31:23 EDT 2017
XPP 9.0C.1 SP #4 FI000000 nllp 60087 [PW=473pt PD=684pt TW=360pt TD=546pt]
VER: [FI000000-Master:23 Aug 08 10:45][MX-SECNDARY: 12 May 17 07:53][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=60087-fi017.xml] 0
