Policyholder Litigation Challenging the Claims-Handling Conduct of Resolute Management

Over the past decade, Berkshire Hathaway has engaged in numerous “retroactive reinsurance” transactions whereby it takes on another insurer's long-tail environmental and asbestos coverage obligations in exchange for payment of a large sum of cash by the insurer. The cash that Berkshire receives from the insurer typically is the amount of cash that the insurer had reserved to pay policyholder claims on these coverage obligations. Warren Buffet has referred to these large sums received from an insurer as “float,” characterized as “money that doesn't belong to us but that we get to invest for Berkshire's benefit.” The lure of holding on to float for investment purposes has led to aggressive efforts by Berkshire's claims-handling unit, Resolute Management, to reduce and delay claims payments to policyholders. In response, a number of policyholders have initiated lawsuits and other proceedings against Berkshire entities and their related insurers.     

Australian Labor as a Federal Organisation: State Uniformity or Distinctiveness?

Is the Australian Labor Party (ALP) one party, or eight? Academic accounts of the ALP throughout its history have emphasised the importance of state-based policy-making and organisation as evidence that the “life of the party” occurs within state and territory branches. However, over the last three decades, changes to the national conference and constitution, the increasing prominence of national leaders and the professionalisation of campaigning practices have arguably created the conditions for a far more centralised organisation, raising the question of whether, in 2019, there is anything distinctive about the ALP state and territory branches beyond the jurisdictions in which they operate. In this article, we investigate the distinctiveness of state Labor branches in terms of their formal organisational diversity and the characteristics and attitudes of their supporters. Using data from an original survey of Australian party supporters conducted in 2016, as well as undertaking an analysis of formal party rules, we show that the ALP exhibits a high degree of organisational uniformity across its branches, and supporters of the party in all states and territories very closely resemble each other. We conclude that even though the party maintains a federal structure it is possible to study its supportership and formal structure as a national organisation.     

Business as Usual? Bail Decision Making and “Micro Politics” in an Australian Magistrates Court

Between the 1970s and 1990s, political scientists in the United States pursued a distinctive research program that employed ethnographic methods to study micro politics in criminal courts. This article considers the relevance of this concept for court researchers today through a case study about bail decision making in a lower criminal court in Australia. It describes business as usual in how decisions are made and the provision of pretrial services. It also looks at how traditionalists and reformers understood business as usual, and uses this as a critical concept to make visible micro politics in this court. The case study raises issues about organizational change in criminal courts since the 1990s, since there are fewer studies about plea bargaining and more about specialist or problem‐solving courts. It is suggested that we need a new international agenda that can address change and continuity in criminal courts.     

Youth Self-Report of Behavioral and Emotional Problems in a Swiss Epidemiological Study

The Youth Self Report (YSR) was used in a Swiss epidemiological study with 1093 subjects aged 10–17 years. Internal consistency was good for the second-order factors Internalizing Problems, ExternalizingProblems, and the Total Problem Score, whereas it was less satisfactory for almost all syndrome scales. In general, internal consistency coefficients were slightly lower in the Swiss sample than in the U.S. sample. Correlations between the syndrome scales resulted in good replications of the original findings as obtained in the U.S. normative sample. Effect analyses showed that sex is more important than age and nationality (indigenous vs. immigrant subjects). However, all effects were small. Correspondence between YSR and Child Behavior Checklist scores showed that agreement between adolescents' and parents' reports is relatively small.     

Why Democracies Make Superior Counterterrorists

The conventional wisdom is that terrorists tend to target democracies because they are uniquely vulnerable to coercion. Terrorists are able to coerce democracies into acceding to their policy demands because liberal countries suffer from two inherent counterterrorism constraints: (1) the commitment to civil liberties prevents democracies from adopting sufficiently harsh countermeasures to eradicate the terrorism threat, and (2) their low civilian cost tolerance limits their ability to withstand attacks on their civilian populations. This article tests both propositions of the conventional wisdom that (a) terrorists attack democracies over other regime types because (b) liberal constraints render democracies vulnerable to coercion. The data do not sustain either proposition: illiberal countries are the victims of a disproportionate number of terrorist incidents and fatalities, and liberal countries are substantially less likely to make policy concessions to terrorists, particularly on issues of maximal importance. A plausibility probe is then developed to explain why democracies have a superior track record against terrorists. The basic argument is that liberal countries are comparatively resistant to coercion—and hence inferior targets—because they are superior counterterrorists. Liberalism's commitment to civil liberties and low civilian cost tolerance are, in the aggregate, actually strategic assets that help democracies prevail in counterterrorist campaigns, thereby reducing the incentives for terrorists to target this regime type. These findings have important implications for how democracies can defend their liberal values and physical security in the age of terrorism.