Prejudice Sample Clauses

Prejudice do or permit or allow to be done anything which might adversely affect the rights of the Lender under this Agreement or the Collateral Documents.
Prejudice. The Subscriber undertakes not to perform and shall not perform or cause to be performed, during the Event, any item which may be prejudicial or likely to cause prejudice to the State of Mauritius and/or the public at large or to the reputation or image of the State of Mauritius or its citizens.
Prejudice. Any cancellation of this Contract pursuant to the provisions of this Article IX shall be without prejudice to the right of the Party not in default to collect any amounts then due it and without waiver of any other remedy or performance to which the Party not in default may be entitled.
Prejudice. Oretsky argues that, even if he violated the garage requirement, Infinity should not have denied coverage because it suffered no prejudice from the violation. Oretsky asserts that the Maserati would have been stolen even if it had been parked in the garage, given that the thieves broke into the garage and stole the keys.To support his argument, Oretsky relies on § 627.409(2) of the Florida Statutes, also known as the “anti-technical statute,” which provides:A breach or violation by the insured of any warranty, condition, or provision of any wet marine or transportation insurance policy, contract of insurance, endorsement, or application therefor does not void the policy or contract, or constitute a defense to a loss thereon, unless such breach or violation increased the hazard by any means within the control of the insured. 4Because we find the term “not in use” to be unambiguous in this case, we decline Oretsky’s invitation to certify the question of the term’s meaning to the Florida Supreme Court. See Ruderman ex rel. Schwartz v. Wash. Nat’l Ins. Corp., 671 F.3d 1208, 1212 (11th Cir. 2012) (stating that federal courts should certify questions to the state supreme court for “truly debatable questions”). Fla. Stat. § 627.409(2). This statute “is designed to prevent the insurer from avoiding coverage on a technical omission playing no part in the loss.” Pickett v.Woods, 404 So. 2d 1152, 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Otherwise, if the insured breached some condition of the policy not pertinent to the loss, “the insurer would collect a premium but would have no exposure to risk because the policy would no longer be effective.” Id.As an initial matter, § 627.409(2) likely does not apply to motor vehicle casualty insurance policies. First, by its terms, the statute only applies to “wet marine or transportation” policies, and not to other types of insurance. See Fla.Stat. § 627.409(2); Indep. Fire Ins. Co. v. Paulekas, 633 So. 2d 1111, 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (stating that § 627.409(2) did not apply to a homeowner’s insurance policy). Second, the term “transportation,” as used in the statute, generally refers to the transport or shipment of goods in commerce, not to the use of motor vehicles for personal conveyance. See Fla. Stat. § 624.607(2) (defining the term “wetmarine and transportation insurance” as “that part of marine insurance which includes,” among other things, “[i]nsurance of personal property and interests therein, in course of exportation from or impor...
Prejudice. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement (Dkt. ##) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Award of AttorneysFees, Expenses, and Incentive Award (Dkt. ##) (the “Motions”). The Court, having reviewed the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, heard argument of counsel, and good cause appearing therein, Plaintiff’s Motion is hereby GRANTED and it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED THAT: 1. Terms and phrases in this Order shall have the same meaning as ascribed to them in the partiesApril [XX], 2012 Class Action Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”). 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over all Parties to the Action, including all Settlement Class Members. 3. On [date of preliminary approval], this Court granted Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement and preliminary certified a settlement class consisting of: Any person in the United States or its territories who, at one or more times as of the date of entry of Preliminary Approval, is or had been a subscriber of Netflix. Excluded from [PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. 5:11-cv-00379-EJD 1 the Settlement Class are the following: (i) the Settlement Administrator, (ii) the Mediator, 2 (iii) any respective parent, subsidiary, affiliate or control person of the Defendant or its 3 officers, directors, agents, servants, or employees as of the date of filing of the Action, 4 (iv) any judge presiding over the Action and the immediate family members of any such 5 Person(s), (v) persons who execute and submit a timely request for exclusion, and (vi) all 6 persons who have had their claims against Defendant fully and finally adjudicated or 7 otherwise released.
Prejudice. Nothing which betrays a bias for or against you as the Provider should be communicated through Requirement Messaging.
Prejudice. Neither the presence of Buyer and Nokia's representatives nor any express or implied acceptance of e.g. work, materials, components, equipment or method of manufacturing nor the fact that the Buyer and Nokia or their representatives have not brought any defect or deficiency to the attention of the Seller or his representatives shall relieve Seller from its obligations under this Document to perform according to and to meet all requirements set out in this Document or prejudice any warranty of the Seller under this Document.
Prejudice. 75] In terms of prejudice, I agree with Master Farrington that there was no incremental prejudice to Rath associated with the additional four month delay in service. Specifically, theamounts paid to the litigation funders were paid shortly after receipt of payment of the accounts. Rath did not wait a six month period, ensure there was no Appointment served, and then pay the litigation funder.[76] I also agree with ACJ Rooke that “generally a taxation within a 2 year limitation period is not prejudicial to the respondent of a taxation”: Samson QB at para 201. In the case before me, ten months elapsed from when the account was rendered to when Rath received notice of the Appointment.[77] Nonetheless, I accept that “there is some prejudice, although not quantifiable” by virtue of “the simple fact of potentially disturbing collected revenue”: Attila Dogan at para 45.[78] Rath further argued that SLCN benefitted from the late service of the Appointment, as this resulted in Rath continuing to do work on other ongoing matters, including on their education claim. Between July 2018 and October 15, 2018, Rath filed pleadings, retained expert witnesses, produced an expert report, brought a bifurcation motion and had begun document production in relation to this claim.[79] However, as Rath acknowledges in their brief, the Law Society of Alberta’s Code of Conduct prevents counsel’s withdrawal except in limited circumstances. Indeed, Rath acknowledges that given those sections of the Code of Conduct dealing with contingency fee agreements, they would not have been able to withdraw regardless of when they were served with the Appointment, and that Rath continued to perform work on the education file until they were instructed not to do so by SLCN. Specifically, the evidence shows that Rath continued to provide legal services related to the educational benefit claim until June 2019 notwithstanding having been served with the Appointment in December of 2018.[80] I acknowledge that an argument exists that if the Appointment had been served earlier, the relationship may have deteriorated faster and instructions from SLCN not to continue may have been given sooner. However, we are talking about a four month differential, and this argument is speculative.[81] Finally, I acknowledge Rath’s argument that the mere absence of prejudice should not be sufficient to permit taxation beyond the six month period: Poundmakers Lodge v Scott & Co, 2002 ABQB 745 at para 19. While this is co...
Prejudice. The Contributor guarantees the Beneficiary Corporation against any prejudice resulting from any legal proceedings for recovery of property, for cancellation or for forfeiture, prior to the date of completion of the contribution, regarding the validity, ownership, use and/or exploitation of Trademarks 1, within the limits of the rights granted to it by the Certificates.
Prejudice. You will not sign any document or do anything which would prejudice Our rights and interests under this Sub-lease.