06.09.2021 Views

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Problem 27.3<br />

Brandon Starr was signed by Tantamount Pictures to appear as the action hero<br />

lead in its upcoming high-budget film, Raiders of the Lost Jurassic Park. The contract<br />

between Starr and Tantamount requires Starr to procure and maintain a $2 million<br />

life and disability insurance policy payable to Tantamount in the event that Starr is<br />

unable to fulfil his obligations to appear in the movie. Starr did indeed take out the<br />

required policy with Casualty Insurance Company and made the premium payments<br />

<strong>for</strong> the first four months, but he then missed the following two months. Casualty<br />

Insurance sent numerous notices to Starr in<strong>for</strong>ming him that if he failed to make a<br />

premium payment <strong>for</strong> a total of 90 days, the policy would, per its express terms, be<br />

cancelled and not subject to reinstatement. On the 93rd day since Starr’s first missed<br />

payment, he was tragically killed when his automobile careened off the side of a<br />

coastal cliff.<br />

(a) Tantamount Pictures promptly sent a notice of claim to Casualty Insurance,<br />

which denied coverage based on the lapse of the policy. Tantamount argued that its<br />

rights were established by its contract with Starr and were unaffected by Starr’s<br />

separate failure to make premium payments. What result and why?<br />

(b) Same facts as part (a), except the insurance policy in question is subject to<br />

a state insurance statute that requires insurers to reinstate policies up to 120 days<br />

since the original missed payment, provided that the policyholder makes the<br />

premium payments current. What result if Tantamount Pictures tenders payment<br />

within the 120 day period?<br />

Be sure that you consider Restatement (Second) of <strong>Contract</strong>s section 309 in<br />

connection with this problem.<br />

Problem 27.4<br />

Think back to the In re Baby M case at the beginning of the course (Units 1<br />

and 2). In the Unit 2 materials, the New Jersey Supreme Court ultimately held that<br />

the surrogacy agreement between Mary Beth Whitehead (the surrogate mother) and<br />

William Stern was unen<strong>for</strong>ceable on public policy grounds. Imagine instead that the<br />

contract actually was en<strong>for</strong>ceable, just like the trial court decided at the beginning of<br />

Unit 2. In that situation, would William Stern’s wife, Elizabeth Stern—who was not<br />

a party to the surrogacy contract—qualify as a third-party beneficiary? Why or why<br />

not?<br />

_____________________<br />

______________________________________________________________________________<br />

UNIT 27: THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARIES 587

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!