Ab initio means “from the beginning.” Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).
Ab initio. – shall mean from the beginning.
Ab initio is a Latin term meaning “from the beginning”;
Examples of Ab initio in a sentence
Ab initio molecular simulations with numeric atom-centered orbitals.
Kresse G, Hafner J (1993) Ab initio molecular dynamics for liquid metals.
Pople, Ab initio Molecular Orbital Theory, Wiley, New York, 1986.
Hafner, Ab initio molecular-dynamics simulation of the liquid-metal–amorphous-semiconductor transition in germanium, Phys.
Wadt, Ab initio effective core potentials for molecular calculations.
More Definitions of Ab initio
Ab initio means from the beginning.
Ab initio. Means “From The Beginning”
Ab initio means “[f]rom the beginning.” Black’s Law Dictionary 5 (9th ed. 2009).In May 2008, the predecessor Commissioner of the current Commissioner commenced an investigation into the earned interest calculations used by the PFCs from 1 November 2007 to 30 April 2008. In a 19 May 2008 letter, the predecessor Commissioner requested specific documents from Respondents in order to compile a “Market Conduct Investigation Report.” The investigation revealed that, because of how the PFCs used the Rule, consumers who cancelled their premium finance agreements in the first five months, or whose insurance policies were declared void ab initio, paid finance charges greater than 1.15% for each 30 days that the loan was outstanding. The predecessor Commissioner issued a Cease-and- Desist Order on 6 October 2008 that prevented Respondents from collecting interest in excess of 1.15% for each 30-day period on any and all premium finance agreements, including those canceled before maturity. The Cease-and-Desist Order required also that Insurance Billing Services and U.S. Capital Associates identify customers who paid interest on insurance policies voided ab initio by the MAIF and for these PFC’s to refund all interest charged and pay pre-judgment interest of six percent to those consumers.Respondents requested timely a hearing on the Commissioner’s Cease-and-Desist Order. The request resulted in a stay of the Order, by operation of statute. Ins. Art., § 2-212 (providing that a hearing demand made within ten days of an order of the Commissioner stays the effect of the order until the result of the hearing is set forth in another order). The Commissioner delegated to an ADIC the responsibility to conduct the hearing and make the final administrative decision. Respondents requested twice that the hearing be transferred to and conducted by the OAH, arguing that the ADIC could not be a fair and impartialpresiding official with respect to the Cease-and-Desist Order issued by the Commissioner, the ADIC’s hierarchical superior. The Commissioner denied both requests.7 The ADIC’s hearing took place over 9 December 2008 to 11 December 2008. Respondents subpoenaed the Commissioner to attend the hearing, but he testified actually as a witness for the MIA. In that testimony, the Commissioner explained his rationale supporting the investigatory conclusions and the basis for the Cease-and-Desist Order. Respondents attempted to show that the Commissioner ratified previously the use of the Rule by...
Ab initio in this context means “from first principles”. Ab initio results are based on theoretical concerns, but are only as good as the initial assumptions. In contrast, empirical results are based on measurements from an experiment, so they are subject to flaws in experimental procedure and measurement error.
Ab initio means the contract is considered null from the beginning and treated as if it does not exist for any purpose." COUCH ON INSURANCE 3D § 65:50, n.1.
Ab initio means “from the beginning.” Blacks L. Dictionary (10th Ed. 2014).voidable, the fact that is either misrepresented or not disclosed must be “material.” See, e.g., Catlin at Lloyd’s, 778 F.3d at 83; Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. Inlet Fisheries Inc., 518 F.3d 645, 648 (9th Cir. 2008); HIH Marine Servs., Inc. v. Fraser, 211 F.3d 1359, 1362 (11th Cir. 2000); N. Am. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Savage, 977 F. Supp. 725, 728 (D. Md. 1997); see also McLanahan v. Universal Ins. Co., 1 Pet. (26 U.S.) 170, 298 (1828) (“If [an omission is] accidental, it would not prejudice the insurance, unless material to the risk.”). Materiality is determined by considering whether, given the circumstances of the case, the information omitted could “reasonably have affected the determination of the acceptability of the risk.’” N. Am. Specialty Ins. Co., 977 F. Supp. at 729 (quoting Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. McBriety, 246 Md. 738, 744, 230 A.2d 81, 84 (1967)).Various courts have found that the misrepresentation of the purchase price of a vessel by the insured constitutes a “material” breach, and thus permits the insurer to void the contract. See, e.g., AGF Marine Aviation and Transport v. Cassin, 544 F.3d 255, 264-266 (3rd Cir. 2008); Certain Underwriters at Lloyds v. Montford, 52 F.3d 219 (9th Cir. 1995); see also New Hampshire Insurance Co. v. C’Est Moi, Inc., 519 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2008) (“‘The fact that the insurer has demanded answers to specific questions in an application for insurance is in itself usually sufficient to establish materiality as a matter of law.’”) (citation omitted). For example, in Cassin, in evaluating whether an insured’s misrepresentation of the purchase price of a vessel was material, the Third Circuit stated, 544 F.3d at 265: “We conclude that when a marine insurer asks for the purchase price, it is a fact material to the risk, the misrepresentation of which violates uberrimae fidei.” And, in Montford, 52 F.3d at 222, the Ninth Circuit determined that the insurance company could void a contract where the insured inserted the present market valueof a vessel rather than the actual purchase price, when the application specifically requested the purchase price.Here, National claims that Rooding misrepresented the purchase price of the Vessel as $25,000 when “he had paid no more than $9,500 . . . .” ECF 36-1 at 18. National states that Rooding’s misrepresentation resulted in the issuance of a policy covering the Vessel for $25,000. Id. According to N...
Ab initio means “from the beginning.” Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).Section 2704(b) of the insurable statute provides a cause of action against a recipient of benefits paid under a policy that lacks an insurable interest. It states, in pertinent part: “If the beneficiary, assignee or other payee under any contract made in violation of [§ 2704(a)] receives from the insurer any benefits thereunder accruing upon the death . . . of the individual insured, . . . his or her executor or administrator . . . may maintain an action to recover such benefits from the person so receiving them.” 18 Del. C. § 2704(b).II. FACTS Defendants LSH CO. and LSH II CO. (collectively, “LSH”)2 received a $5 million death benefit payment pursuant to an insurance policy (the “Policy”) on the life of Joseph H. Daher. Plaintiff, the Estate of Joseph H. Daher (“Plaintiff”), contends that it is entitled to the $5 million under 18 Del. C. § 2704(b) because the Policy was an illegal STOLI policy that amounted to a wager on Mr. Daher’s life.At all times relevant, Mr. Daher was a resident of California.3 The Policy was issued in 2006, when he was 80 years old. (D.I. 30, Ex. 2.) It was issued by American General Life Insurance Company (“American General”).4 (D.I. 23 (“FAC”) ¶¶ 26, 55, Ex. 5.) The Policy states that it is subject to Delaware law. (Id.)