SAFWAY STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC., A DIVISION OF FIGGIE INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Appellees.
Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin.
December 9, 1987.Rehearing Denied February 3, 1988.
 Steven M. Tipton, Flahive, Ogden & Latson, Austin, for appellants.
Dean M. Kilgore, Diana K. Borden, McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore, Austin, for appellees.
Before POWERS, GAMMAGE and CARROLL, JJ.
Appellants, American Home Assurance and National Union Fire Insurance, appeal from a declaratory judgment in favor of appellees, Rawlings Sporting Goods and Safway Steel Products, concerning insurance coverage of punitive damage awards. The litigation follows two separate product liability actions in which Texas juries had assessed punitive damages.
The issues in this appeal fall broadly into three principal categories: (1) conflicts of law; (2) construction of the language of the insurance agreements in question; and (3) the insurability of punitive damage awards as a matter of public policy.
We have concluded that any conflict of law question must be resolved in favor of applying Texas law, that the plain language of the policies does not exclude punitive damages, and that insuring against possible punitive damages is not contrary to Texas public policy. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
A. Rawlings Case: In 1973, Rawlings Sporting Goods Company, Inc., purchased an Umbrella Liability Policy from American Home Assurance. While the policy was in effect, Mark Daniels sustained injuries while playing football and wearing a Rawlings football helmet. Mark sued, and the jury found Rawlings grossly negligent in failing to warn its customers of the limitations of the helmet, and awarded $750,000 in punitive damages. Rawlings Sporting Goods Co., Inc. v. Daniels, 619 S.W.2d 435 (Tex.Civ.App.1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
(a) Personal injury, including death at any time resulting therefrom, as defined herein and caused by or arising out of an occurrence.
B. Safway Case: In 1977, National Union Fire Insurance Company, Inc. issued an Excess Third Party Liability Policy to Safway Steel Products Company, Inc. During the policy period, Leo Ventris successfully sued Safway for injuries caused by a defective scaffold. Ventris charged gross negligence in design, testing, marketing, warning or failure to warn of the dangers of the scaffolding system, and recovered $1,000,000 in punitive damages.
"Occurrence" means an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.
Since both the Rawlings and Safway cases involve similar questions, they were consolidated into a single declaratory judgment action.
As a preliminary matter, appellants contend that the district court erred in applying Texas law both to the construction of the insuring agreements, and to the issue of whether public policy prohibits the insurability of punitive damage awards. Appellants suggest that New York or Missouri law should have been applied in the Rawlings case and New York or Wisconsin law applied in the Safway case. This argument is primarily based upon § 188 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws which addresses the evaluation of the significance of a state's relationship to a particular question.
A. The Rawlings Case: American Home is a New York Corporation with its principal place of business in New York; Rawlings' principal place of business is Missouri; the umbrella liability policy was negotiated by phone with Rawlings' office in Missouri; the policy was issued in New York and countersigned in Missouri; the premiums are payable in New York through Rawlings' agent in Ohio; and the last act of affirmance by the insurer occurred in New York.
B. The Safway Case: National Union Fire's state of incorporation is Pennsylvania; National Union Fire's home office and principal place of business is New York; Safway's principal place of business is Wisconsin; the policy premiums are payable in New York; and the last act of affirmance by the insurer occurred in New York.
In Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 665 S.W.2d 414 (Tex.1984), the Supreme Court abandoned the traditional lex loci rule for  resolving choice of law questions and adopted the "most significant relationship" approach set forth in § 6 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws. The guidelines in § 6 direct courts to identify the relative interest of each state in having its law applied, and then to balance the interests of the affected states with the factors listed in the Restatement (Second). However, a court should only resort to the § 6 guidelines in the absence of either a valid contractual agreement between the parties regarding the applicable law, or a local statutory provision controlling the disposition of the choice of law question.
Any contract of insurance payable to any citizen or inhabitant of this State by any insurance company or corporation doing business within this State shall be held to be a contract made and entered into under and by virtue of the laws of this State relating to insurance, and governed thereby, notwithstanding such policy or contract of insurance may provide that the contract was executed and the premiums and policy (in case it becomes a demand) should be payable without this State, or at the home office of the company or corporation issuing the same.
Here both American Home and National Union Fire were at all times "doing business" in Texas. Moreover, at the moment the Texas juries in both the underlying personal injury actions returned a verdict legally obligating Rawlings and Safway to pay the respective plaintiffs certain sums for both compensatory and punitive damages, both insurance policies became "payable" under their own terms.
Article 21.42 has been previously upheld as constitutional. Austin Bldg. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 432 S.W.2d 697 (Tex.1968). The only limitation is that art. 21.42 may not be given an extraterritorial effect. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Dunken, 266 U.S. 389, 45 S.Ct. 129, 69 L.Ed. 342 (1924). In other words, the statute may not be used in a way which regulates business outside the State of Texas.
We have little difficulty in concluding that art. 21.42 requires us to apply Texas law to the issues in this appeal. In reaching this conclusion, we have considered and rejected the argument that application of Texas law would in essence regulate business outside of our State. Further, we cannot agree with the necessarily attendant proposition that New York, Missouri, and Wisconsin have any interest in determining which parties are financially responsible for paying a Texas jury verdict.
The fact that the respective insurance policies were negotiated, executed and premiums paid elsewhere in no way alters the tenor placed on the litigation when the instigating events arose in Texas. Our analysis of the choice of law issues in this appeal has led us to conclude that Texas has adequate contacts to sustain the choice of forum law under art. 21.42. See Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302, 101 S.Ct. 633, 66 L.Ed.2d 521 (1981); see also, Leflar, The Nature of Conflicts Law, 81 Colum.L.Rev. 1080 (1981). Nevertheless, we have also analyzed each state's particular interests in having its law applied and that state's contact with the particular issues in this appeal.
 As we indicated earlier, following Duncan v. Cessna, supra, the substantive law of the state most significantly related to the disputed issue will apply to future choice of law cases, unless the parties expressly contract otherwise. However, the Duncan Court did not adopt the Restatement (Second) as a whole. See Comment, Texas Contract Choice of Law Rules After Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Company, 36 Baylor L.Rev. 491, 496 (1984). Nonetheless, for purposes of this opinion, we will adopt appellants' argument that our decision should be based on the more specific choice of law rules governing contracts.
Section 188 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws provides that "with respect to an issue in contract" the relevant contacts to be taken into account in applying the principles of § 6 include such matters as the place of contracting, place of negotiation, and place of performance of the contract. However, as comment (e) of § 188 indicates, these factors merely indicate which states are most likely to be "interested" within the meaning of § 6. Hence, at best, the § 188 factors only pertain to one part of a larger analytical scheme that determines whose local law will be applied to resolve the issue at hand.
As appellants' application of the § 188 factors indicates, the potentially-interested jurisdictions, other than Texas, include New York, Missouri, and Wisconsin. In accordance with comment (d), we have analyzed each of the two principal issues in this appeal separately in order to determine whether either would be resolved differently under the local law of two or more of the potentially-interested states.
1. Construction of the Coverage Provisions of the Policies: The choice of law question here is not whether Missouri, New York, Wisconsin or Texas would interpret the policy as providing liability coverage for punitive damages, but rather whether the rules of interpretation employed in construing the insurance policies differ.
In general, Texas courts will enforce an insurance policy as written if the language used is free from any ambiguity. Glover v. National Insurance Underwriters, 545 S.W.2d 755 (Tex.1977). However, if the language is subject to two or more reasonable interpretations, the construction which affords coverage will be adopted. Blaylock v. American Guarantee Bank Liability Insurance Co., 632 S.W.2d 719 (Tex. 1982). This policy of construction against the insurer and in favor of the insured is especially strong when the court is dealing with exceptions and words of limitation. Id. at 721.
We do not address the specific rules of construction under New York law, since New York refuses on public policy grounds to enforce insurance contracts which insure against liability for punitive damages. See Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. Village of Hempstead, 48 N.Y.2d 218, 422 N.Y.S.2d 47, 397 N.E.2d 737 (1979); Padavan v. Clemente, 43 A.D.2d 729, 350 N.Y.S.2d 694 (1973); see also, Hafner v. Guerlain, Inc., 34 A.D.2d 162, 310 N.Y.S.2d 141 (1970). Hence, a false conflict exists regarding the policy construction issue—because of public policy consideration, a New York court would never employ its rules of construction to resolve our particular issue. Accord, Beaver v. County Mutual Insurance Co., 95 Ill.App. 3d 1122, 51 Ill.Dec. 500, 420 N.E.2d 1058 (1981).
A Missouri court has recently been called upon to interpret policy provisions virtually identical to the policies issued by appellants, and concluded that the phrase "all sums which the insured shall become obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury" does not include awards for punitive damages. Schnuck Markets, Inc. v. Transamerica Insurance Co., 652 S.W. 2d 206, at 211 (Mo.App.1983). Following Missouri rules of contract construction, the court did not indulge in any particular presumption in favor of the insured, and concluded that the policy language unambiguously excluded coverage for punitive damages.
In contrast, under Wisconsin principles of law, the test is not what the insurer  intended the words to mean, but rather what a reasonable person in the position of the insured would have understood them to mean. Kremers-Urban Co. v. American Employers Insurance, 119 Wis.2d 722, 351 N.W.2d 156 (1984). Words or phrases will be considered ambiguous when they are fairly susceptible to more than one construction. Brown v. Maxey, 124 Wis.2d 426, 369 N.W.2d 677 (1985). Where no ambiguity exists, Wisconsin courts will merely apply the policy terms. Id. 369 N.W.2d at 686. Additionally, any provision tending to limit the liability of the insurance company is construed most strongly against the insurance company if ambiguous. Wisconsin Builders, Inc. v. General Insurance Company, 65 Wis.2d 91, 221 N.W.2d 832 (1974).
Hence, there is no conflict between the applicable Wisconsin and Texas rules of contract construction. In fact, given the factual circumstances in Brown v. Maxey, supra, we believe Wisconsin would interpret the policies issued by appellants in the same manner and reach the same conclusions as a Texas court applying Texas law.
Since we have identified a conflict in the pertinent local law of Texas and Missouri, § 188 directs us to identify the interests of each state in having its rule of law applied to this appeal. We then assess the relative strength of those interests based primarily upon the specific contacts set forth in § 188, as they relate to the issue of policy construction.
The factual contacts Missouri has with our specific policy interpretation questions are: (1) the American Home insurance policy was countersigned in Missouri; (2) American Home was doing business in Missouri at the time the policy was issued; and (3) Rawlings' principal place of business is in Missouri. None of these contacts are, however, especially important to a determination of whether Missouri law should be applied in resolving whether American Home's policy with Rawlings excludes punitive damages awarded by a Texas jury. Hence, any interest Missouri may have in having its rule of law applied is relatively minor.
By comparison, the Texas interests are relatively strong. For instance, Texas has a policy of regulating insurance contracts payable to inhabitants of Texas. Tex.Ins. Code Ann. art. 21.42 (1981). Article 21.42 represents an identifiable statement by the Texas legislature regarding Texas public policy. In addition, the applicable Texas rules of construction favor interpreting ambiguous policies in favor of the insured, which indicates a state interest in protecting the policyholder.
Appellants argued before this Court that since the Texas personal injury plaintiffs have been paid on their judgments against Rawlings and Safway, all Texas contacts and interests in construing the insurance contracts have somehow evaporated. We disagree. Although the compensation of Texas residents is no longer a concern, the fact remains that the instigating event—imposition of punitive damages —occurred in Texas.
If we allowed appellants to dissociate themselves completely from the jurisdiction which imposed those damages, we would necessarily condone forum-shopping. Appellants could, after paying the primary personal injury action under the reservation of rights, seek a declaratory judgment in a state in which they were doing business and whose public policy precludes insuring against punitive damages. If the needs of the interstate system are to be served as § 6 of the Restatement (Second) on Conflicts of Law suggests, then the appropriate local law to be applied in resolving both the policy construction issues and public policy issues is the law of the state that imposed the punitive damages in the first place—Texas.
 In summary, we conclude that given the relevant state interests involved and the contacts of the states to the question of policy coverage, the trial court properly applied Texas law. Appellants' first point of error is overruled.
Of the various jurisdictions identified by appellants, only New York expressly refuses, based upon public policy grounds, to enforce insurance policies covering punitive damages. See Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, supra; see also Parker v. Agricultural Insurance Co., 109 Misc.2d 678, 440 N.Y.S.2d 964 (1981). Although the issue of insurability of punitive damages has not been as thoroughly discussed in Texas as it has elsewhere, Texas law has nonetheless been interpreted to permit such coverage. See Dairyland County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wallgren, 477 S.W.2d 341 (Tex.Civ.App.1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Home Indemnity Company v. Tyler, 522 S.W.2d 594 (Tex.Civ. App.1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The law in Missouri appears unsettled, and Wisconsin allows coverage. See Colson v. Lloyd's of London, 435 S.W.2d 42 (Mo.App.1968); Crull v. Gleb, 382 S.W.2d 17 (Mo.App. 1964); Brown v. Maxey, supra. Hence, if a conflict exists, it exists only between New York and Texas law.
Although New York's interest in not enforcing this type of policy is no doubt important, the New York § 188 contacts are at best tangentially related to the issue of insurability itself. Our conclusion that Texas law should be applied to this issue is also supported by other considerations. For instance, when the law of one state  would invalidate the contract, but the law of another would uphold it, the Restatement (Second) favors applying the law of the state which would uphold the validity of the contract.
In addition, the policies underlying a particular state's law regarding punitive damages will in many cases reflect whether that state will allow a company or individual to obtain insurance against liability for possible punitive damage awards. Thus, the public policy issue is intertwined with the basic purposes sought to be achieved by the law which imposed the damages. If uniformity and predictability are to be achieved on resolving such issues, the local law which provides for the punitive damage award should also be used to resolve the insurability issue.
In summary, even if we were to adopt appellants' decisional framework on the choice-of-law question, we conclude that the district court correctly applied Texas law to the public policy issue. Appellants' second point of error is overruled.
The threshold inquiry on this issue is whether the language used in the insurance policies covers punitive damages. The Rawlings policy requires American Home Assurance to pay the "total sum" for which the insured becomes obligated to pay by reason of personal injury caused by or arising out of an "occurrence." The policy issued to Safway requires National Union Fire to pay on behalf of Safway "all sums" for which Safway shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury caused by an "occurrence." Both policies then define "occurrence" as an event that results in personal or bodily injury "neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured."
Appellants maintain that appellees' conduct that gave rise to an award of punitive damages is by definition excluded from coverage under the term "occurrence." They contend that injuries resulting from grossly negligent conduct are either intended or expected from the insured's standpoint and therefore not covered under the policy. In response, appellees contend that a reasonable person reading the terms "total sum" or "all sums" would expect those terms to include not only compensatory damages, but also punitive damages. Finally, appellees argue that, at best, the contract is ambiguous and should be interpreted in favor of coverage.
There is no language whatsoever in either the insuring agreement or the definitional sections which expressly excludes coverage for punitive damages. One can only reach an interpretation of exclusion through a technical analysis on whether the insured's gross negligence, which resulted in the injury causing event, constitutes conduct neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured. On this point, reasonable arguments may be made on both sides. If we needed to reach this issue, we would conclude that punitive damages arising out of the insured's gross negligence are not by definition excluded from coverage based upon the intentional injury exclusion provision of the policy. However, we conclude that a much more obvious reason supports coverage.
The insuring agreements begin with virtually identical language obligating the insured to pay "all sums" or the "total sums" which the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as "damages". In this  regard, it is important to observe that the insurance contracts here have nationwide effect and contain standard contractual provisions. As a result, we are not the first court to be called upon to interpret these particular terms.
The majority of courts that have addressed this question and found coverage have generally done so based on the following arguments: (1) the average insured, in the absence of an express policy exclusion from liability from punitive damages, would assume that the term "damages" would include punitive damages, since they would become by judgment a "sum" that the insured would be legally obligated to pay; (2) because the insurer drafted the policy and could have made clear its intention to exclude coverage for punitive damages, the rules of construction require it to bear the burden of ambiguity, and (3) punitive damages are covered because they always "arise" out of the underlying action for injury.
The Texas courts that have interpreted the "all sums" phrase have held that the term encompasses punitive damages. See Dairyland County Mutual Ins. Co. v. Wallgren, supra; Home Indemnity Company v. Taylor, supra. In fact, the majority of courts in other jurisdictions that have addressed this construction issue have concluded that the term covers punitive damages. Annot., 20 A.L.R.3d 320 (1980). We mention this fact solely to show that past interpretations would lead the average policy holder reading this language to expect protection against all claims that are not the result of an intentional tort. When problems of contractual clauses are involved, precedent is necessarily a highly important factor, and contracting parties generally select a judicially-construed clause with the intention of adopting the meaning that the courts have approved. Hardware Dealers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Berglund, 393 S.W.2d 309 (Tex.1965).
According to the principles of Texas law previously articulated, policy terms are to be given the normal and usual meanings ascribed to them by an ordinary person. We conclude that both policies, at best, may be termed "ambiguous" and should therefore be interpreted in favor of coverage. See Blaylock v. American Guarantee Bank Liability Insurance, supra. Moreover, upon reading the policy provisions, and in the absence of any express exclusion of liability for punitive damages, we conclude a person insured by such a policy would have reason to believe that his premiums protect him against liability for "all sums" that the insured might become "obligated to pay", and that the term "damages" would include both compensatory and punitive damages which become, by judgment, a "sum" that he is legally obligated to pay.
The language used in both the Rawlings and Safway policies makes no distinctions as to the type of "damages" that are covered up to the policy limits. For purposes of excluding categories of damages, distinctions drawn upon the nature of the insured's acts are not enough. Almost every conscious or voluntary act may be considered "intended" or "expected." There is nothing in the policy itself which would otherwise forewarn an insured that the intent of the parties was to exclude punitive damages based upon the insured's gross negligence. Appellant insurance companies could have easily removed any ambiguity by including an express exclusion from liability for punitive damages.
Questions of policy coverage are, of course, questions of law. Since we have concluded that both policies cover punitive damages, we do not need to address appellants' individual points of error regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to support the district court's findings that the underlying personal injury actions arose out of an "occurrence" or that the punitive damages were not assessed "because of personal (or bodily) injury." Points of error three, four, five, six, eight and nine are overruled.
The last issue we must address is whether Texas public policy prohibits the enforcement of an insurance contract covering punitive damages. In Dairyland County Mutual Ins. Co. v. Wallgren, supra, the Court of Appeals defined public policy with reference to the law of Texas as embodied in its constitution, statutes, decisions of its courts, and the administrative practices of its state's officers. Since the automobile liability policy issued by Dairyland was written in accordance with the terms and conditions of insurance policies set out by the Insurance Commission, the court concluded that the policy could not contravene public policy. This line of reasoning is not, however, without its critics. See Comment, Insurability Against Punitive Damages: A Call For Reform, S.Tex. L.J. 443, 451 (1982).
Where either of the elements of fraud, gross negligence, or oppression mingle in the controversy, the law, instead of adhering to the system or even the language of compensation, adopts a wholly different rule. It permits the jury to give what it terms punitory, vindictive, or exemplary damages, in other words, blends together the interests of society and the aggrieved individual, and gives damages not only to recompense the sufferer, but to punish the offender.
Graham v. Roder, 5 Tex. 141 (1849).
Although recovery of punitive damages is available in a variety of cases, most awards have been founded on willful or malicious conduct of the defendant. See generally Demarest, The History of Punitive Damages in Texas, 28 S.Tex.L.Rev. 535 (1987). However, with the decision in Burk Royalty Co. v. Walls, 616 S.W.2d 911 (Tex.1981), awards of punitive damages based upon the defendant's gross negligence have become more common, especially in the products liability area. See, e.g., International Armament Corp. v. King, 686 S.W.2d 595 (Tex.1985); Ford Motor Co. v. Nowak, 638 S.W.2d 582 (Tex. App.1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Rawlings Sporting Goods Co. v. Daniels, supra.
Where a person is able to insure himself against punishment he gains a freedom of misconduct inconsistent with the establishment of sanctions against such misconduct. It is not disputed that insurance against criminal fines or penalties would be void as violative of public policy. The same public policy should invalidate any contract of insurance against the civil punishment that punitive damages represent.
The policy considerations in a state where, as in Florida and Virginia, punitive damages are awarded for punishment and deterrence, would seem to require that the damages rest ultimately as well [as] nominally on the party actually responsible for the wrong. If that person were permitted to shift the burden to an insurance company, punitive damages would serve no useful purpose. Such damages do not compensate the plaintiff for his injury, since compensatory damages already have made the plaintiff whole. And there is no point in punishing the insurance company; it has done no wrong. In actual fact, of course, and considering the extent to which the public is insured, the burden would ultimately come to rest not on the insurance companies but on the public, since the added liability to the insurance companies would be passed along to the premium payers. Society would then be punishing itself for the wrong committed by the insured.
Despite having recognized identical purposes behind punitive damages, other courts addressing the issue have reached the opposite conclusion. See, e.g., Lazenby  v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 214 Tenn. 639, 383 S.W.2d 1 (1964); Harrell v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 279 Or. 199, 567 P.2d 1013 (1977); see generally Ghiardi & Kircher, Punitive Damages: Law and Practice, supra at § 712; Annot., 16 A.L. R.4th 11 (1982).
Rather than grappling with this entire question, we have narrowed our analysis strictly to the facts at hand. Thus, the question we address is this—Is it consistent with Texas public policy for a corporation to insure itself against the gross conduct of its agents? After Burk Royalty Co. v. Walls, the ability of a plaintiff to allege and obtain a punitive damage award has undoubtedly been enhanced. As a consequence, business and professional persons, firms and corporations constantly face the risk that where gross negligence is alleged, a verdict for punitive damages might well follow.
Against this background of increased availability of punitive damages, we address the issue of whether insuring against punitive damage awards is consistent with the dual purposes of punitive damages: punishment and deterrence.
Opponents of coverage argue that by allowing a corporation to insure itself against its own wrongs, the corporation is able to "shift the burden" of the punitive damage judgment to the insurance company. In the end, the only persons actually "punished" are the innocent members of society who purchase insurance. See Northwestern National Casualty Company v. McNulty, supra at 440-41. We believe this argument is overly simplistic.
An insurance company that deliberately enters into a contract to provide coverage against liability for punitive damages is free to charge additional premiums for such coverage, so as to provide a separate fund for the express purpose of paying such judgments without "punishing" either the insurance company or society. The insurance company is also free to deny coverage of punitive damages altogether. In the case of an established corporation, it is important to note that its inability to obtain such coverage will inevitably be passed on to the consumers of its products—who are also innocent.
The question of how to "punish" a corporation is a difficult one. At best, some pressure may be exerted on the directors through the corporate shareholders to remove agents of the corporation whose actions or omissions led to the particular conduct being punished. More realistically, the cost of paying the judgment will be borne not by the culpable corporate agents, but by the corporation's customers. Moreover, in the normal course of business, corporate officials will punish the offending agents themselves. The threat of increased premiums and the possibility of damages exceeding policy limits appear sufficient to preserve this pressure to discharge the agents whose conduct is deemed improper.
In cases where the corporation is less well-established or affluent, its inability to insure against such liability may well cause a permanent financial collapse. Not only may the size of the business prevent it from shifting the burden, but the effect of the financial collapse will be permanent, since such a judgment is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Yet the instigating event may arise from only a single incident of gross negligence on the part of an agent. A fine line separates conduct that justifies imposition of punitive damages from conduct that does not.
It is doubtful whether the denial of insurance coverage for liability against punitive damages actually deters culpable actors. Price v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, 108 Ariz. 485, 502 P.2d 522 (1972). In Texas, juries are not allowed to consider the defendant's wealth, resources, or insurance coverage when assessing compensatory or punitive damages. Whatever deterrence value punitive damages have under Texas law, we see no hindrances to the practical achievement of those objectives under a policy of law that allows for insuring against liability for punitive damages.
It is one thing for an insurance company to write a policy with provisions which exclude liability for punitive damages and to ask that this court construe and apply such policy provisions. It is quite another thing, however, for an insurance company which has written and issued an insurance policy in terms which include coverage for punitive damages—presumably at a premium which the insurance company believed to be sufficient as consideration for such coverage—to ask this court to relieve it from such liability under its own insurance contract by a judicial declaration that the contract is void for reasons of public policy.
Harrell v. Travelers Indemnity Co., supra 567 P.2d at 1021-22.
We conclude that public policy would be best served by requiring the insurance company to honor its obligation. Accordingly, we hold that under Texas law it was not contrary to public policy for Rawlings and Safway to shift the punitive damages awards to their liability insurance carriers, and that, under the terms of the insurance contracts between the parties, punitive damages were within the scope of coverage. Point of error ten is overruled.
Since we conclude that the district court properly rendered judgment in favor of appellees, we also find no abuse of discretion in its award of attorney's fees to appellees. Appellants' point of error eleven is also overruled.
The appellees have brought two crosspoints claiming error by the district court in its findings of fact. However, we find nothing in the record to indicate that appellees brought the claimed errors to the attention of the district court; accordingly, they were waived. See, e.g., West Texas Utilities Co. v. Irvin, 161 Tex. 5, 336 S.W. 2d 609 (1960); State Bar of Texas, Appellate Procedure in Texas, § 15.16 (2d ed. 1979).
(3) If the place of negotiating the contract and the place of performance are in the same state, the local law of this state will usually be applied, except as otherwise provided in §§ 189-199 and 203.
 See, e.g., Universal Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Tenery, 96 Colo. 10, 39 P.2d 776 (1934); Nicholson v. American Fire & Casualty Ins. Co., 177 So.2d 52 (Fla.App.1965); Greenwood Cemetery Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 238 Ga. 313, 232 S.E.2d 910 (1977); Skyline Harvestore Systems, Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 331 N.W.2d 106 (Iowa 1983); First Nat. Bank of St. Mary's v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 283 Md. 228, 389 A.2d 359 (1978); LoRocco v. New Jersey Mfgrs. Indemnity Ins. Co., 82 N.J.Super. 323, 197 A.2d 591 (1964); Lazenby v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 214 Tenn. 639, 383 S.W.2d 1 (1964); Cieslewicz v. Mutual Serv. Cas. Ins. Co., 84 Wis.2d 91, 267 N.W.2d 595 (1978).
 In Colson v. Lloyd's of London, supra, the Missouri Appeals Court held that allowing law enforcement officers to insure themselves against willful and intentional acts is not against Missouri public policy. In contrast, four years earlier, another Missouri Appeals court held, in dictum, that to allow a motorist to insure himself against punitive damages would be contrary to public policy. See Crull v. Gleb, supra. The court in Schnuck Markets, Inc. v. Transamerica Insurance Co., supra, never reached the public policy question.
 It is not entirely clear that a "true conflict" exists between New York and Texas law. New York law allows an award for punitive damages only when the offending party's conduct amounts to a conscious disregard of the rights of others or for conduct so reckless as to amount to such disregard. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. Village of Hempstead, supra; see also Hafner v. Guerlain, Inc.,34 A.D.2d 162, 310 N.Y.S.2d 141 (1970). In contrast, both Rawlings and Safway were assessed punitive damages based simply on their gross negligence. Although the argument may be made that gross negligence as defined under Texas law, encompasses the New York standard, the reverse proposition is not true. By not imposing punitive damages simply based on gross negligence. New York has purposely limited the availability of punitive damages to select factual circumstances.
The entire public policy argument behind not enforcing policies which insure against punitive damages changes from state to state. See generally City Products Corp. v. Globe Indemnity Company, 88 Cal.App.3d 31, 151 Cal.Rptr. 494 (1979). Insurance coverage is valid in those jurisdictions where punitive damages are allowed in respect to gross negligence or reckless or wanton conduct. In comparison, jurisdictions where punitive damages are limited to cases of fraud, oppression or malice have generally invalidated insurance coverage for punitive damages on public policy grounds. New York falls into the latter category.
Had the underlying personal injury actions been tried under New York law, punitive damages would not have been available, since New York does not allow punitive damages for gross negligence in products liability actions. Hafner v. Guerlain, supra. Since there are several public policy reasons supporting punitive damages, the public policy reasons for not allowing insurance of punitive damages are likewise different. Hence, it may not be said that New York has an interest in applying its rule of law to prevent an insurance company from paying a "punitive damage award" against its insured that would have never been assessed under New York law. The policies of an interested state are important only if an application of that state's laws would further these policies.
 Appellants' argument regarding the definition of "occurrence" is an attempt to lump the entire category of punitive damages within the broader policy exclusion of all damages resulting from the intentional conduct of the insured. See generally Annot., 31 A.L.R.4th 957 (1984) (the "neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured" language is most commonly referred to as "an intentional injury clause").
 The term "occurrence" by definition is limited to acts where the conduct is intended to bring about a result to this extent the terms "intended" and "expected" are construed together. We refuse to extend the "intentional injury exclusion" to include conduct amounting to gross negligence. See e.g., Continental Insurance Companies v. Hancock, 507 S.W.2d 146 (Ct.App.Ky. 1973); Hensley v. Erie Ins. Co., 168 W.Va. 172, 283 S.E.2d 227 (1981).
 See generally Burrell & Young, Insurability of Punitive Damages, 62 Marg.L.Rev. 1, 12 (1978); Ghiardi & Kircher, Punitive Damages: Law and Practice, § 705 (1984); Schumaier & McKinsey, The Insurability of Punitive Damages, 72 Am.B.J. 68 (March 1, 1986).
 Tex.Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 37.009 (1986) empowers the trial court to award both costs and reasonable and necessary attorney's fees as are equitable and just in a declaratory judgment action taken under chapter 37. That award will not be set aside absent a showing that the trial court abused its discretion in making the award that it did. Zaruba v. Zaruba, 498 S.W.2d 695 (Tex.Civ.App.1973, writ dism'd).


text:
Specialized RNA endonucleases for the maturation of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)-derived RNAs (crRNAs) are critical in CRISPR–CRISPR-associated protein (Cas) defence mechanisms. The Cas6 and Cas5d enzymes are the RNA endonucleases in many class 1 CRISPR–Cas systems. In some class 2 systems, maturation and effector functions are combined within a single enzyme or maturation proceeds through the combined actions of RNase III and trans-activating CRISPR RNAs (tracrRNAs). Three separate CRISPR–Cas systems exist in the cyanobacterium Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803. Whereas Cas6-type enzymes act in two of these systems, the third, which is classified as subtype III-B variant (III-Bv), lacks cas6 homologues. Instead, the maturation of crRNAs proceeds through the activity of endoribonuclease E, leaving unusual 13- and 14-nucleotide-long 5′-handles. Overexpression of RNase E leads to overaccumulation and knock-down to the reduced accumulation of crRNAs in vivo, suggesting that RNase E is the limiting factor for CRISPR complex formation. Recognition by RNase E depends on a stem-loop in the CRISPR repeat, whereas base substitutions at the cleavage site trigger the appearance of secondary products, consistent with a two-step recognition and cleavage mechanism. These results suggest the adaptation of an otherwise very conserved housekeeping enzyme to accommodate new substrates and illuminate the impressive plasticity of CRISPR–Cas systems that enables them to function in particular genomic environments.
Bhaya, D., Davison, M. & Barrangou, R. CRISPR–Cas systems in Bacteria and Archaea: versatile small RNAs for adaptive defense and regulation. Annu. Rev. Genet. 45, 273–297 (2011).
Grissa, I., Vergnaud, G. & Pourcel, C. The CRISPRdb database and tools to display CRISPRs and to generate dictionaries of spacers and repeats. BMC Bioinforma. 8, 172 (2007).
Jansen, R., Embden, J. D. A., van Gaastra, W. & Schouls, L. M. Identification of genes that are associated with DNA repeats in prokaryotes. Mol. Microbiol. 43, 1565–1575 (2002).
Lange, S. J., Alkhnbashi, O. S., Rose, D., Will, S. & Backofen, R. CRISPRmap: an automated classification of repeat conservation in prokaryotic adaptive immune systems. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, 8034–8044 (2013).
Hochstrasser, M. L. & Doudna, J. A. Cutting it close: CRISPR-associated endoribonuclease structure and function. Trends Biochem. Sci. 40, 58–66 (2015).
Westra, E. R., Dowling, A. J., Broniewski, J. M. & van Houte, S. Evolution and ecology of CRISPR. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 47, 307–331 (2016).
Hale, C., Kleppe, K., Terns, R. M. & Terns, M. P. Prokaryotic silencing (psi)RNAs in Pyrococcus furiosus. RNA 14, 2572–2579 (2008).
Charpentier, E., Richter, H., van der Oost, J. & White, M. F. Biogenesis pathways of RNA guides in archaeal and bacterial CRISPR–Cas adaptive immunity. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 39, 428–441 (2015).
Hale, C. R. et al. RNA-guided RNA cleavage by a CRISPR RNA–Cas protein complex. Cell 139, 945–956 (2009).
Przybilski, R. et al. Csy4 is responsible for CRISPR RNA processing in Pectobacterium atrosepticum. RNA Biol. 8, 517–528 (2011).
Karginov, F. V. & Hannon, G. J. The CRISPR system: small RNA-guided defense in Bacteria and Archaea. Mol. Cell. 37, 7–19 (2010).
Carte, J., Wang, R., Li, H., Terns, R. M. & Terns, M. P. Cas6 is an endoribonuclease that generates guide RNAs for invader defense in prokaryotes. Genes. Dev. 22, 3489–3496 (2008).
Nam, K. H. et al. Cas5d protein processes pre-crRNA and assembles into a cascade-like interference complex in subtype I-C/Dvulg CRISPR–Cas system. Structure 20, 1574–1584 (2012).
Punetha, A., Sivathanu, R. & Anand, B. Active site plasticity enables metal-dependent tuning of Cas5d nuclease activity in CRISPR–Cas type I-C system. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 3846–3856 (2014).
Staals, R. H. J. et al. Structure and activity of the RNA-targeting type III-B CRISPR–Cas complex of Thermus thermophilus. Mol. Cell. 52, 135–145 (2013).
Shmakov, S. et al. Discovery and functional characterization of diverse class 2 CRISPR–Cas systems. Mol. Cell. 60, 385–397 (2015).
Koonin, E. V. et al. Diversity, classification and evolution of CRISPR–Cas systems. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 37, 67–78 (2017).
East-Seletsky, A. et al. Two distinct RNase activities of CRISPR–C2c2 enable guide-RNA processing and RNA detection. Nature 538, 270–273 (2016).
Abudayyeh, O. O. et al. C2c2 is a single-component programmable RNA-guided RNA-targeting CRISPR effector. Science 353, aaf5573 (2016).
Scholz, I., Lange, S. J., Hein, S., Hess, W. R. & Backofen, R. CRISPR–Cas systems in the cyanobacterium Synechocystis sp. PCC6803 exhibit distinct processing pathways involving at least two Cas6 and a Cmr2 protein. PLoS. ONE 8, e56470 (2013).
Reimann, V. et al. Structural constraints and enzymatic promiscuity in the Cas6-dependent generation of crRNAs. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, 915–925 (2017).
Carte, J., Pfister, N. T., Compton, M. M., Terns, R. M. & Terns, M. P. Binding and cleavage of CRISPR RNA by Cas6. RNA 16, 2181–2188 (2010).
Wang, R., Preamplume, G., Terns, M. P., Terns, R. M. & Li, H. Interaction of the Cas6 riboendonuclease with CRISPR RNAs: recognition and cleavage. Structure 19, 257–264 (2011).
Gesner, E. M., Schellenberg, M. J., Garside, E. L., George, M. M. & MacMillan, A. M. Recognition and maturation of effector RNAs in a CRISPR interference pathway. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 18, 688–692 (2011).
Schein, A., Sheffy-Levin, S., Glaser, F. & Schuster, G. The RNase E/G-type endoribonuclease of higher plants is located in the chloroplast and cleaves RNA similarly to the E. coli enzyme. RNA 14, 1057–1068 (2008).
Horie, Y. et al. Dark-induced mRNA instability involves RNase E/G-type endoribonuclease cleavage at the AU-box and SD sequences in cyanobacteria. Mol. Genet. Genom. 278, 331–346 (2007).
Mohanty, B. K., Petree, J. R. & Kushner, S. R. Endonucleolytic cleavages by RNase E generate the mature 3′ termini of the three proline tRNAs in Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, 6350–6362 (2016).
Jiang, X., Diwa, A. & Belasco, J. G. Regions of RNase E important for 5′-end-dependent RNA cleavage and autoregulated synthesis. J. Bacteriol. 182, 2468–2475 (2000).
Chao, Y. et al. In vivo cleavage map illuminates the central role of RNase E in coding and non-coding RNA pathways. Mol. Cell. 65, 39–51 (2017).
Zhang, J., Graham, S., Tello, A., Liu, H. & White, M. F. Multiple nucleic acid cleavage modes in divergent type III CRISPR systems. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, 1789–1799 (2016).
Rott, R., Zipor, G., Portnoy, V., Liveanu, V. & Schuster, G. RNA polyadenylation and degradation in cyanobacteria are similar to the chloroplast but different from Escherichia coli. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 15771–15777 (2003).
Sharma, K. et al. Analysis of protein–RNA interactions in CRISPR proteins and effector complexes by UV-induced cross-linking and mass spectrometry. Methods 89, 138–148 (2015).
Zhang, J.-Y. et al. RNase E forms a complex with polynucleotide phosphorylase in cyanobacteria via a cyanobacterial-specific nonapeptide in the noncatalytic region. RNA 20, 568–579 (2014).
Hein, S., Scholz, I., Voß, B. & Hess, W. R. Adaptation and modification of three CRISPR loci in two closely related cyanobacteria. RNA Biol. 10, 852–864 (2013).
Loedige, I. et al. The NHL domain of BRAT is an RNA-binding domain that directly contacts the hunchback mRNA for regulation. Genes. Dev. 28, 749–764 (2014).
Schultz, A., Nottrott, S., Watkins, N. J. & Lührmann, R. Protein–protein and protein–RNA contacts both contribute to the 15.5K-mediated assembly of the U4/U6 snRNP and the box C/D snoRNPs. Mol. Cell. Biol. 26, 5146–5154 (2006).
Tamulaitis, G., Venclovas, Č. & Siksnys, V. Type III CRISPR–Cas immunity: major differences brushed aside. Trends Microbiol. 25, 49–61 (2017).
Kazlauskiene, M., Tamulaitis, G., Kostiuk, G., Venclovas, Č. & Siksnys, V. Spatiotemporal control of type III-A CRISPR–Cas immunity: coupling DNA degradation with the target RNA recognition. Mol. Cell. 62, 295–306 (2016).
Kopf, M. et al. Comparative genome analysis of the closely related Synechocystis strains PCC 6714 and PCC 6803. DNA Res. 21, 255–266 (2014).
Deltcheva, E. et al. CRISPR RNA maturation by trans-encoded small RNA and host factor RNase III. Nature 471, 602–607 (2011).
Karvelis, T. et al. crRNA and tracrRNA guide Cas9-mediated DNA interference in Streptococcus thermophilus. RNA Biol. 10, 841–851 (2013).
Li, H. Structural principles of CRISPR RNA processing. Structure 23, 13–20 (2015).
Fonfara, I. et al. Phylogeny of Cas9 determines functional exchangeability of dual-RNA and Cas9 among orthologous type II CRISPR–Cas systems. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, 2577–2590 (2014).
Sesto, N. et al. A PNPase dependent CRISPR system in Listeria. PLoS. Genet. 10, e1004065 (2014).
Walker, F. C., Chou-Zheng, L., Dunkle, J. A. & Hatoum-Aslan, A. Molecular determinants for CRISPR RNA maturation in the Cas10–Csm complex and roles for non-Cas nucleases. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, 2112–2123 (2016).
Stazic, D., Lindell, D. & Steglich, C. Antisense RNA protects mRNA from RNase E degradation by RNA–RNA duplex formation during phage infection. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, 4890–4899 (2011).
Sakurai, I. et al. Positive regulation of psbA gene expression by cis-encoded antisense RNAs in Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803. Plant Physiol. 160, 1000–1010 (2012).
Kuchmina, E., Wallner, T., Kryazhov, S., Zinchenko, V. V. & Wilde, A. An expression system for regulated protein production in Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803 and its application for construction of a conditional knockout of the ferrochelatase enzyme. J. Biotechnol. 162, 75–80 (2012).
Yao, L., Cengic, I., Anfelt, J. & Hudson, E. P. Multiple gene repression in Cyanobacteria using CRISPRi. ACS Synth. Biol. 5, 207–212 (2016).
Blin, K., Pedersen, L. E., Weber, T. & Lee, S. Y. CRISPy-web: an online resource to design sgRNAs for CRISPR applications. Synth. Syst. Biotechnol. 1, 118–121 (2016).
Hofacker, I. L. Vienna RNA secondary structure server. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 3429–3431 (2003).
Darty, K., Denise, A. & Ponty, Y. VARNA: interactive drawing and editing of the RNA secondary structure. Bioinformatics 25, 1974–1975 (2009).
We thank O. Alkhnbashi and C. Steglich for helpful comments, U. Ruppert for technical assistance, M. Asayama and E. P. Hudson for the provided plasmids. Financial support from the German Research Foundation programme FOR1680 'Unravelling the Prokaryotic Immune System' (grants HE 2544/8-2 and UR225/1-2) to W.R.H. and H.U. is greatly acknowledged.
J.B. and W.R.H. designed the work. The protein–RNA cross-linking experiments and identification of cross-linked peptide–RNA bonds were performed by K.S. and H.U. The RNase E overexpression and partial deletion strains were constructed by A.W. The ∆C1 and ∆C1∆C2 deletion strains were constructed by V.R. All other experiments were carried out by J.B. J.B., K.S. and W.R.H. analysed the data. J.B. and W.R.H. wrote the paper with contributions from all authors.
Correspondence to Wolfgang R. Hess.
Supplementary Figures 1–6, Supplementary Table 1, raw full length gels and blots.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


Full Case Name: COMMONWEALTH v. Norman P. ZALESKY, Jr.
**1 *908 After a jury-waived trial in the District Court, the defendant was convicted of cruelty to an animal, in violation of G.L. c. 272, § 77. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt.FN1 We affirm.
The evidence introduced by the Commonwealth during its case-in-chief may be summarized as follows. On January 4, 2007, a female witness was driving her vehicle on Conz Street in Northampton, when she saw the defendant jump out of a van stopped in oncoming traffic and begin to yell at a dog in a nearby yard. The dog ran quickly toward the defendant and jumped into the van. The defendant got back into the van and, as he was closing the door, bent down and picked up what later was determined to be a whiffle bat. While still waiting in traffic, the defendant began beating the dog with the bat at “full swing.” When traffic started to move, the defendant held the bat in one hand and the steering wheel with the other. As he drove, he continued to strike the dog on the neck and back of the head at least ten times. The witness called 911 to report what she observed.
*909 After the Commonwealth rested, the defendant presented one witness, a veterinarian, who examined the dog six days after the incident. The veterinarian testified that she found no evidence of trauma, but also opined that a dog probably would experience pain and suffering if struck repeatedly in the manner employed by the defendant.
At the conclusion of the trial, the judge found the defendant guilty; ordered the bail bond funds of $500 posted by the defendant to be released to the Commonwealth; and removed the dog from his care.
Discussion. In relevant part, G.L. c. 272 § 77, as appearing in St.1977, c. 921, § 2, imposes criminal penalties on any person who “cruelly beats” an animal or “inflicts unnecessary cruelty” upon an animal in his charge. Cruelty in this context is “[s]evere pain inflicted upon an animal ... without any justifiable cause.” Commonwealth v. Lufkin, 89 Mass. 579, 7 Allen 579, 581 (1863). Specific intent to cause harm is not required; “decisional law makes clear that in circumstances involving the direct infliction of pain on an animal all that must be proved is that the defendant ‘intentionally and knowingly did acts which were plainly of a nature to inflict unnecessary pain.’ ” Commonwealth v. Erickson, 74 Mass.App.Ct. 172, 177, 905 N.E.2d 127 (2009), quoting from Commonwealth v. Magoon, 172 Mass. 214, 216, 51 N.E. 1082 (1898).
The defendant argues that the Commonwealth produced insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions exceeded what was necessary and appropriate to train the dog. However, the evidence of the defendant's words and his demeanor permitted the conclusion that the defendant was not, in fact, imposing bona fide discipline, but was “indulging vindictive passion” when he struck the dog. See Commonwealth v. Lufkin, supra. Furthermore, the statute applies not only in cases where an animal is “cruelly beaten or tortured for the gratification of a malignant or vindictive temper,” but also in cases where “cruel beating or torture [is inflicted] for the purpose of training or correcting an intractable animal.” Ibid. That being so, the testimony as to the violence of the beating, combined with the arresting officer's observations of the behavior of the dog, were sufficient to permit the conclusion that the defendant's actions were cruel, whatever their motivation. See Commonwealth v. Erickson, supra at 178, 905 N.E.2d 127. “The defendant's guilt did not depend upon whether he thought he was unnecessarily cruel, but upon whether he was so in fact. It need not appear that he knew that he was cruel, and that he was willing to be so, but only that he intentionally and knowingly did acts which were plainly of a nature to inflict unnecessary pain, and so were unnecessarily cruel.” Commonwealth v. Magoon, supra.
**2 The Commonwealth's case did not deteriorate as a result of the defendant's evidence. See Commonwealth v. Kelley, 370 Mass. 147, 150 n. 1, 346 N.E.2d 368 (1976); Commonwealth v. Hastings, 22 Mass.App.Ct. 930, 931, 493 N.E.2d 508 (1986). If anything, the veterinarian's testimony strengthened the Commonwealth's case by lending further support to the inference that the beating was of a nature that would have inflicted pain and suffering. The absence of bruising or other damage is not significant, because the existence of discernible physical injury is not a required element of animal cruelty.
FN1. The defendant moved for a required finding of not guilty at the close of the Commonwealth's case, and reiterated his claim that the evidence was insufficient at the close of all the evidence.


Help Your Teen Now was created with the parents in mind. We know that coping with a troubled teen can be stressful and searching for the right alternative or therapeutic boarding school is a big decision. We want to take the guesswork out of your research. We have compiled the data that you need in order to make an informed decision on a school. Our team of experts and careful screening are designed to make the research process a little easier for you. Let us help you begin to put the pieces of your lives back together. Call us today to get started.
No Schools or Programs In Kansas, Add yours Today!
Officially, accreditation is optional for private schools in Kansas, although they can become accredited through the Kansas Board of Education. K.S.A. §72-7513(a)(3). Registration of nonpublic schools is mandatory, although Licensing is not and Approval is optional for schools below high school level. Approval is based on adherence to the criteria set out by the Kansas State Board of Education. K.S.A. 2007 Supp. §72-1111(f).
Teacher certification is mandatory at accredited schools, but is optional at non-accredited schools as long as they are “competent instructors”. K.S.A . §72- 7513(a)(4) and K.A.R. § 91-31-32(c)(5). Instructors at an accredited school must be evaluated in written form once a semester for their first two years. Thereafter, evaluations must take place yearly or once every three years, depending on the length of employment. K.S.A. 2007 Supp. §72-9003. Accredited private schools are required to teach reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, spelling, grammar, U.S. and Kansas history, civil government and citizenship, health and hygiene and other subjects as determined by the state board. K.S.A. §72-1101.
All students not previously enrolled in a Kansas school must present a valid health assessment prior to beginning school covering proof of basic health and immunizations. If they are exempt based on religious or medical reasons, signed paperwork must be submitted to the school. K.S.A. §72-5214. Private schools are subject to yearly safety inspections and fire drills must be held once a month in addition to three tornado drills per year. K.S.A. 2007 Supp. §31-133(a)(5), (8).
10.0 percent of children between 4 and 17 diagnosed per year. (2007 study, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2007 Study).
Pregnancy rates for adolescents between the ages of 15 and 19 in Kansas were between 40.9 and 49.8 per 1,000 women (Center for Disease Control and Prevention 2009 Study).
In 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice reported the following juvenile arrest rates for for Kansas: 163 arrests for violent crime, 1,109 arrests for property crime, 472 arrests for Drug Abuse and 59 arrests for weapons violations. (Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2009).
Once you call, we will administer a free evaluation for your teen. Based on the results, we will be able to help you individualize your child’s plan of care. Our services include everything from facility recommendation to advice on filling out paperwork correctly. We are not affiliated with any of the groups or organizations we endorse, so you can be assured that you are getting advice that is unbiased and based only on our experience. Selecting an alternative or therapeutic boarding school is a stressful decision for you as a parent, and we want to be your advocate. We have helped hundreds of families just like yours and we will be just as dedicated to helping you. Call us today!


The Data Protection Officer is the contact person for all personal data handling issues at the University of Rostock. His or her responsibilities arise pursuant to § 20 of the Data Protection Act of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (DSG M-V).
Pursuant to § 20 Paragraph 3 of the DSG M-V, the Data Protection Officer at the University of Rostock is required to monitor the implementation of the DSG M-V and other data protection regulations, and to provide advice on their application. He or she has the right to demand information and to inspect paper-based and electronic files to the extent necessary for the execution of his or her duties. He or she cannot be prevented from executing his or her duties on the grounds of professional and administrative confidentiality. He or she also has the right to appeal to the State Commissioner for Data Protection at all times.
and carrying out relevant pre-checks in connection with the configuration and setup of, or significant changes to automated processes (pursuant to § 19 Paragraph 2 of the DSG M-V).
All university personnel have the right to consult directly with the Data Protection Officer on any and all matters pertaining to data protection without having to go through official channels (cf. § 20 Paragraph 1 Section 6 of the DSG M-V).
The Data Protection Officer carries out his or her duties independently and without being required to seek further authorisation (cf. § 20 Paragraph 1 Section 4 of the DSG M-V). Within the organisational hierarchy he or she reports directly to the Vice Chancellor, has the right to consult directly with him or her, and must be shielded from discriminating or unfavourable treatment occasioned by his or her fulfilling his or her duties (cf. § 20 Paragraph 1 Section 5 of the DSG M-V).
Prof. Dr. Hubertus Gersdorf has been the Data Protection Officer at the University of Rostock since February 2013. He has been supported in this role since October 2026 by his colleague Katja Fröhlich in her role as Deputy Data Protection Officer at the University of Rostock.
Should you require advice or support with such things as drafting a consent form, producing a process description or anything else concerning data protection, please contact either the Deputy Data Protection Officer at the University of Rostock or his deputy.


text:
The NIOZ Department of Estuarine & Delta Systems (EDS) focuses on understanding the complex interactions between organisms and their physical and chemical environment in estuaries and delta’s. We are based in Yerseke, on the Eastern Scheldt but we also work on other estuarine systems worldwide. Our aim is towards an integrated understanding of the functioning of estuary and delta systems, in the context of natural and human-induced environmental changes.
Adapting ecosystems Can ecosystems of estuaries and deltas adapt to the combined effects of global climate change? We study how biology interacts with the physical and chemical environment in shaping the resilience of these estuarine and delta ecosystems.
Blue growth & sustainability Humanity is turning to the seas for future food and energy. We investigate the role of marine plant biomass, such as seaweeds and micro-algae, in the transition to a bio-based, circular economy that is in harmony with the marine environment.
Biological hotspots Some habitats show enormous biological diversity and activity, on structures like wind-parks, or created by reef-building organisms like mussels and oysters. How do organisms modify their environment, creating such biological hotspots?
Extreme estuaries Greenland fjord ecosystems are profoundly impacted by large increase of freshwater input from the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet. This strongly affects the physical oceanography but also their ecosystem functioning.
Sea level change For coastal regions, sea-level rise is one of the most important consequences of climate change. Understanding what determines sea-level change, both offshore and close to coasts, helps to prepare vulnerable regions for future changes.
Nature helps There is a growing effort to restore valuable intertidal ecosystems and to harnass the food and flood-defense services they provide. We require fundamental understanding of these ecosystems, their functioning, dynamics and resilience.
Bienfait, L. (2019). Developing a protection level index for protected areas. Thesis. NIOZ Royal Institute for Sea Research: Yerseke. 47 pp.
Blok, T. (2019). Towards a simplification for estimating bioturbation intensities. Thesis. NIOZ Royal Institute for Sea Research: Yerseke. 27 pp.
Arminaite, E. (2018). Effects of hydrodynamics on the biomass allocation and biochemical composition of Saccharina latissima. NIOZ Royal Institute for Sea Research: Yerseke. 63 pp.
Baerends, V. (2018). Method to quantify bio irrigation. Thesis. NIOZ Royal Institute for Sea Research: Yerseke. 34 pp.
Bastiaan, J. (2018). Assessing benthic productivity in the Oosterschelde estuary, The Netherlands. MSc Thesis. NIOZ Royal Institute for Sea Research: Yerseke.
Benedetti-Cecchi, L.; Crowe, T.; Boehme, L.; Boero, F.; Christensen, A.; Grémare, A.; Hernandez, F.; Kromkamp, J.C.; Nogueira García, E.; Petihakis, G.; Robidart, J.; Sousa Pinto, I.; Zingone, A.; Larkin, K.; Muñiz Piniella, A.; Kellett, P.; Heymans, S.J.J. (2018). Strengthening Europe's capability in biological ocean observations. Marine Board Future Science Brief, 3. European Marine Board: Ostend. ISBN 9789492043559. 76 pp.
de Jong, D.L.C. (2018). The Effect of Temperature Differentiated Cultivation on the Fucosterol and Saringosterol production of Saccharina latissima. Thesis. NIOZ Royal Institute for Sea Research: Yerseke. 36 pp.
Fremouw, R. (2018). Free Amino Acids & 5’-Nucleotide content of Seaweeds : A Chemical Assessment of Taste. Thesis. NIOZ Royal Institute for Sea Research: Yerseke. 61 pp.
Hummel, H.; Van der Meer, J.; Aalberts, N. (2018). Noordzeedagen 2018: denk mee over de Noordzee: thema's, workshops en acties. NIOZ-rapport, 2018(8). NIOZ: Texel. 36 pp.
Jager, Z.; Witbaard, R.; Kroes, M. (2018). Impact of demersal & seine fisheries in the Natura 2000-area Cleaver Bank. NIOZ-rapport, 2018(3). NIOZ: Texel. 64 pp.
Jager, Z.; Witbaard, R.; Kroes, M. (2018). Impact of demersal & seine fisheries in the North Sea areas Frisian Front and Central Oyster Grounds. NIOZ-rapport, 2018(6). NIOZ: Yerseke. 70 pp.
Neijenhuis, P. (2018). Effects of benthic macrofauna on the oxygen and nutrient dynamics in the Oosterschelde, Zeeland. NIOZ Royal Institute for Sea Research: Yerseke. 42 pp.
Nieuwhof, S. (2018). The use of remote sensing to reveal landscape-scale ecosystem engineering by shellfish reefs. PhD Thesis. NIOZ Royal Institute for Sea Research: Yerseke. ISBN 978-90-365-4542-6. 156 pp.
Özdemir, B. (2018). Methode ontwikkeling van zure suikers m.b.v. HPLC-PAD : Het bepalen van de M/G-ratio in alginaat geëxtraheerd uit macroalgen . NIOZ Royal Institute for Sea Research: Yerseke. 50 pp.
Temmerman, Y. (2018). The two-way feedback system in offshore sandwave fields : The interactions between the seabed and the benthic community 30 km offshore of Texel . Thesis. NIOZ Royal Institute for Sea Research: Yerseke. 32 pp.
Versleijen, M. (2018). Proteins in seaweed : Ulva lactuca & Saccharina latissima. Thesis. NIOZ Royal Institute for Sea Research: Yerseke. 35 pp.
Zhu, Q. (2018). Impact of off-bottom seaweed cultivation on fluid and sediment dynamics. NIOZ Royal Institute for Sea Research: Yerseke. 25 pp.
Elliott, S.A.M.; Arroyo, N.L.; Safi, G.; Ostle, C.; Guérin, L.; McQuatters-Gollop, A.; Aubert, A.; Artigas, F.; Budria, A.; Rombouts, I.; Pesch, R.; Schmitt, P.; Vina-Herbon, C.; Meakins, B.; González-Irusta, J.M.; Preciado, I.; López-López, L.; Punzón, A.; Torriente, A.; Serrano, A.; Haraldsson, M.; Capuzzo, E.; Claquin, P.; Kromkamp, J.; Niquil, N.; Judd, A.; Padegimas, B.; Corcoran, E. (2017). Proposed approaches for indicator integration. EcApRHA Deliverable WP 4.1. [S.n.]: [s.l.]. ISBN 9781911458296. 43 pp.
Haraldsson, M.; Arroyo, N.L.; Capuzzo, E.; Claquin, P.; Kromkamp, J.; Niquil, N.; Ostle, C.; Preciado, I.; Safi, G. (2017). Report on the integration of OSPAR Food Webs Indicators into the NEAT tool. EcApRHA Deliverable WP 3.5. [S.n.]: [s.l.]. ISBN 9781911458289. 43 pp.
Kromkamp, J.; Capuzzo, E.; Philippart, C.J.M. (2017). Measuring phytoplankton primary production: review of existing methodologies and suggestions for a common approach. EcApRHA Deliverable WP 3.2. [S.n.]: [s.l.]. ISBN 9781911458272. 24 pp.
Gerkema, T. (2016). An Introduction to Tides. NIOZ: Yerseke. 88 pp.
Hummel, H.; Hummel, C. (2016). Scenario for the organisation of conferences and symposia. 4th edition. NIOZ-rapport, 2016(1). NIOZ: Den Burg. 36 pp.
Kromkamp, J.; Vlaming, J. (2016). Primaire productie in de Zeeschelde en haar zijrivieren in de periode 2010-2015. OMES project Luik 5.. [S.n.]: [s.l.].
Kromkamp, J.C.; Folmer, E.; Philippart, C.J.M. (2016). Opzet rekeninstrumentarium voor de berekening van primaire productie van fytoplankton en microfytobenthos in het Eems-Dollard estuarium. [S.n.]: [s.l.].
La Nafie, Y.A. (2016). Seagrass responses to interacting abiotic stresses. PhD Thesis. Radboud University: Nijmegen. ISBN 978-94-6233-228-7.
Seitaj, D. (2016). Impact of cable bacteria on the biogeochemical cycling in a seasonally hypoxic coastal basin. PhD Thesis. Vrije Universiteit Brussel: [s.l.]. 217 pp.
Craeymeersch, J.A.M; Escaravage, V.; Adema, J.; Asch, M.; Tulp, I.Y.M.; Prins, T. (2015). PMR Monitoring natuurcompensatie Voordelta - bodemdieren 2004 - 2013. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2015-09. NIOZ: Yerseke. 171 pp.
de Vries, J.J. (2015). On the local dynamics of currents in the estuarine Marsdiep basin. PhD Thesis. Utrecht University: Utrecht. ISBN 978-94-6228-679-5. 175 pp.
Engelberts, A.; Escaravage, V.; Van Avesaath, P. (2015). Pilot uitzaaien Groot zeegras in het Grevelingenmeer-KRW P000653. T1 bepaling 2014. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2015-01. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Escaravage, V. (2015). Datarapportage t0 Benthos Roggenplaat nj 2015. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2015-11. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Escaravage, V. (2015). t0 Benthos Roggenplaat najaar 2015. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2015-12. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Escaravage, V. (2015). Datarapportage HbR Rekolonisatie vj 2014. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2015-04. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Kromkamp, J.C.; Philippart, C.J.M. (2015). Primaire productie in het waddengebied: meten en berekenen. NIOZ-rapport, 2015(3). NIOZ: Den Burg. 64 pp.
Lindeboom, H.; Rijnsdorp, A.D.; Witbaard, R.; Slijkerman, D.; Kraan, M. (2015). Het ecologisch belang van het Friese Front. IMARES Wageningen Report, C137/15 A. IMARES Wageningen UR: Wageningen. 24 pp.
Prins, T.C.; Van Avesaath, P.; Escaravage, V.; de Kluijver, M.J.; Dubbeldam, M.C.; Vergouwen, S.A.; Nolte, A.J.; Schipper, C.A.; Arts, F.A. (2015). Bekkenrapport Veerse Meer 2000-2014 ten behoeve van de Evaluatie Peilbesluit. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2015-10. NIOZ: Yerseke. 134 pp.
van Dalfsen, J.A.; Nolte, A.J.; Deerenberg, C.M.; Escaravage, V.; Brinkman, A.G.; Ysebaert, T.J.W.; de Kluijver, A.; Vergouwen, S.; van Duren, L.A. (2015). Mogelijkheid voor voorspelling van ecologische doelvariabelen uit KRW, KRM en Natura2000 met modellen : Onderdeel KPP B&O Waterkwaliteitsmodelschematisaties 2014. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2015-02. NIOZ: Yerseke. 49 pp.
van Kooten, T.; van Denderen, D.; Glorius, S.; van der Wal, J.T.; Witbaard, R.; Ruardij, P.; Lavaleye, M.; Slijkerman, D. (2015). An exploratory analysis of environmental conditions and trawling on species richness and benthic ecosystem structure in the Frisian Front and Central Oyster Grounds. IMARES Wageningen Report, C037/15. IMARES Wageningen UR: Wageningen. 47 pp.
Verbrugge, L.N.H.; De Hoop, L.; Leuven, R.S.E.W.; Aukema, R.; Beringen, R.; Creemers, R.C.M.; van Duinen, G.A.; Hollander, H.; Scherpenisse, M.; Spikmans, F; Van Turnhout, C.A.M.; Wijnhoven, S.; de Hullu, E. (2015). Expertpanelbeoordeling van (potentiële) risico’s en managementopties van invasieve exoten in Nederland : Inhoudelijke input voor het Nederlandse standpunt over de plaatsing van soorten op EU-verordening 1143/2014. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2015-06. NIOZ: Yerseke. 51 pp.
Wijnhoven, S. (2015). Datarapportage: Datarapportage IRIS-Benthos Monstercampagne Najaar 2014. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2015-03. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Wijnhoven, S.; Engelberts, A.; Dekker, A. (2015). Non-indigenous species inventory of estuarine intertidal areas; a comparison of estuaries and habitats using a hard substrate transect methodology. Pilot study within the frame of the INTERREG IV A 2 Seas project SEFINS commissioned by the NVWA. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2015-07. NIOZ: Yerseke. 96 pp.
Wijnhoven, S.; Gittenberger, A. (2015). Recommendations from the Pilot project SEFINS estuarine Non-indigenous Species : Supplementary Memorandum with joint and overarching recommendations coming from the pilot studies of Wijnhoven et al. (2015) and Gittenberger & Rensing (2015. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2015-08. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Wijnhoven, S.; Verbrugge, L.; Kabuta, S.; Lavaleye, M.S.S.; Faasse, M.; Gittenberger, A.; Van Moorsel, G.; Smolders, S.; de Hullu, E. (2015). Soortselectie en beoordeling mariene soortenten behoeve van de EU Exotenverordening : Resultaten en verslaglegging expertpanelbeoordeling van desoortengroep ‘mariene soorten : Initieel product als onderdeel van de expertpanelbeoordeling van het totaal aan potentieel invasieve exoten in Nederland. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2015-05. [S.n.]: Yerseke. 141 pp.
Cozzoli, F.; Eelkema, M.; Bouma, T.J.; Ysebaert, T.; Escaravage, V.; Herman, P.M.J. (2014). A mixed modeling approach to predict the effect of environmental modification on species distributions. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2014-04. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Escaravage, V. (2014). Data rapportage: Data rapport Compensatie Monitoring MV2_nj2012. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2014-01. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Escaravage, V. (2014). Datarapportage : Datarapportage HbR Rekolonisatie nj2014. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2014-09. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Escaravage, V.; Blok, D.B.; Dekker, A.; Engelberts, A.; van Hoesel, O.J.A.; Kleine-Schaars, L.; van Leiden, S.; Scott, T.; Verburg, A.; van Vooren, R.; Wijnhoven, S. (2014). Macrozoöbenthos Monitoring, Perceel Delta (Oosterschelde, Westerschelde 2012), MWTL Basisrapportage. Waterlichamen: Oosterschelde en Westerschelde (najaar). Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2014-06. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Glorius, S.T.; Kaag, N.H.B.M.; Wijnhoven, S. (2014). Benthos baseline study pipeline trajectory A6-A – Ravn. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2014-05. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Hummel, C. (2014). Scenario for the organization of conferences and symposia. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2014-03. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Hummel, H.; Hummel, C.A. (2014). Scenario for the organisation of conferences and symposia. 2nd edition. NIOZ-Yerseke, Yerseke, the Netherlands. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2014-07. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Peperzak, L.; Gollasch, S. (2014). Comparing organism detection instruments in measuring 2-10 µm and 10-50 µm plankton cells. NIOZ Flow Cytometer Workshop Report. NIOZ: Texel. 66 pp.
Van Avesaath, P.H.; Engelberts, A.E.; Hummel, H. (2014). Wieraangroei op betonzuilen Quickscan van aangetroffen wieren op de dijkbedekking bij Burghsluis, Viane, Stavenisse en de Zandkreek, November 2014. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2014-10. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Van Der Gaag, M.; Van der Velde , G.; Wijnhoven, S.; Rajagopal, S. (2014). Temperature dependent larval occurrence and spat settlement of the invasive brackish water bivalve Mytilopsis leucophaeta (Conrad, 1831) (Dreissenidae). Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2013-20. NIOZ: Yerseke. 30-34 pp.
Wijnhoven, S. (2014). Definition strategy and interfaces with the monitoring of marine biodiversity. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2014-02. NIOZ: Yerseke. 59 pp.
Wijnhoven, S. (2014). Datarapportage: Datarapportage Benthos Survey Wintershall Noordzee (14_01_DGRB_IMAR_BS-Win). Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2014-08. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Aguiar Gonzalez, B. (2013). Breeze-forced oscillations and strongly nonlinear tide-generated internal solitons. PhD Thesis. Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: [s.l.]. 1-186 pp.
Daan, R.; de Bruyne, R.; Wijnhoven, S.; Kuijper, W.; Faasse, M.; van Moorsel, G.; Gmelig Meyling, A.; van Leeuwen, S. (2013). Tweekleppigen – Bivalvia. Schelpdieren van het Nederlandse Noordzeegebied. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2013-07. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Daan, R.; Wijnhoven, S.; Dekker, R.; van Leeuwen, S. (2013). Leefgebieden voor weekdieren. Schelpdieren van het Nederlandse Noordzeegebied. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2013-06. [S.n.]: Yerseke.
de Bruyne, R.; Daan, R.; Faasse, M.; Kuijper, W.; Wijnhoven, S.; Gmelig Meyling, A.; van Leeuwen, S. (2013). Huisjesslakken - Gastropoda. Schelpdieren van het Nederlandse Noordzeegebied. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2013-08. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Depreiter, D.; Cleveringa, J.; van der Laan, T.; Maris, T.; Ysebaert, T.; Wijnhoven, S. (2013). Samenvatting T2009 rapportage Schelde-estuarium. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2013-11. NIOZ: Yerseke. 21 pp.
Depreiter, D.; Cleveringa, J.; van der Laan, T.; Maris, T.; Ysebaert, T.; Wijnhoven, S. (2013). Nota evaluatie van de Evaluatiemethodiek. T2009 rapportage Schelde-estuarium. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2013-12. NIOZ: Yerseke. 87 pp.
Escaravage, V. (2013). Data rapportage: Data rapport MWTL najaar 2012. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2013-13. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Escaravage, V.; Hummel, H.; Blok, D.B.; Dekker, A.; Engelberts, A.; van Hoesel, O.J.A.; Kleine-Schaars, L.; Markusse, R.; Meliefste, T.; Sistermans, W.; Wijnhoven, S. (2013). Macrozoöbenthosonderzoek MWTL in de Delta 2011. Waterlichamen: Oosterschelde en Westerschelde (najaar). Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2013-16. NIOZ: Yerseke. 24 + bijlagen pp.
Escaravage, V.; Hummel, H.; Blok, D.B.; Dekker, A.; Engelberts, A.; van Hoesel, O.J.A.; Kleine-Schaars, L.; Markusse, R.; Meliefste, T.; Sistermans, W.; Wijnhoven, S. (2013). Macrozoöbenthosonderzoek MWTL in de delta 2012. Waterlichamen: Oosterschelde en Westerschelde (najaar). Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2013-23. NIOZ: Yerseke. 20 + bijlagen pp.
Gollasch, S.; Peperzak, L. (2013). Demonstration and feasibility of RT PCR and immune detection of human pathogens as candidate methods for compliance control and requirements for compliance control efforts. NIOZ: Texel. 10 pp.
Hummel, H.; Hummel, C.A. (2013). The role of marine stations in the 21st century. A business plan for MARS - the European Network of Marine Institutes and Stations. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2013-03. NIOZ: Yerseke. 63 pp.
Magni, P.; Rajagopal, S.; Como, S.; Jansen, J.M.; Van der Velde , G.; Hummel, H. (2013). Delta C-13 and delta N-15 variations in organic matter pools, Mytilus spp. and Macoma balthica along the European Atlantic coast. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2013-14. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Van Avesaath, P.H.; Engelberts, A.E.; Hummel, H. (2013). Japanse oesters in het Veerse Meer. Haalbaarheidsstudie lokale verwijdering van Japanse oesters om overlast voor waterrecreatie te verminderen. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2013-19. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Van Den Brink, F.W.B.; Van der Velde , G.; Wijnhoven, S. (2013). Seasonal changes in caddis larvae asseblages in river-floodplain habitats along a hydrological connectivity gradient. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2013-04. [S.n.]: Yerseke.
Wijnhoven, S.; Duineveld, G.C.A.; Lavaleye, M.S.S.; Craeymeersch, J.; Troost, K.; van Asch, M. (2013). Kaderrichtlijn Marien indicatoren Noordzee. Naar een uitgebalanceerde selectie van indicator soorten ter evaluatie van habitats en gebieden enscenario’s hoe die te monitoren. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2013-02. NIOZ: Yerseke. 108 pp.
Wijnhoven, S.; Escaravage, V. (2013). Data rapportage : Data rapport HbR Rekolonisatie 2013. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2013-15. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Wijnhoven, S.; Escaravage, V. (2013). Data rapport Zeeuwse Banken 2012. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2013-21. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Wijnhoven, S.; Escaravage, V. (2013). Data rapport Garnalenvisserij effecten RWS - WD, voorjaar & najaar 2012. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2013-22. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Wijnhoven, S.; Kromkamp, J. (2013). Ecologisch functioneren. T2009 rapportage Schelde estuarium. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2013-10. NIOZ: Yerseke. 458-499 pp.
Wijsman, J.W. M.; Goudswaard, P.C.; Escaravage, V.; Wijnhoven, S. (2013). De macrobenthosgemeenschap van de Zeeuwse Banken na zandwinning.Een overzicht van drie T0 jaren en een eerste jaar van rekolonisatie. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2013-17. NIOZ: Yerseke. 95 pp.
Witbaard, R.; Duineveld, G.C.A.; Bergman, M.J.N. (2013). The final report on the growth and dynamics of Ensis directus in the near coastal zone off Egmond, in relation to environmental conditions in 2011-2012. NIOZ-rapport, 2013(2). NIOZ: Texel. 79 pp.
Witbaard, R.; Lavaleye, M.; Duineveld, G.C.A.; Bergman, M.J.N. (2013). Atlas of the megabenthos (incl. small fish) on the Dutch continental shelf of the North Sea. NIOZ-rapport, 2013(4). NIOZ: Texel. 221 pp.
Ysebaert, T.J.W.; De Mesel, I.; Wijnhoven, S.; Kromkamp, J.C. (2013). Flora en fauna. T2009 rapportage Schelde estuarium. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2013-09. NIOZ: Yerseke. 386-497 pp.
Becquet, V.; Simon-Bouhet, B.; Pante, E.; Hummel, H.; Garcia, P. (2012). Glacial refugium versus range limit: Conservation genetics of Macoma Balthica, a key species in the Bay of Biscay (France). Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2012-10. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Escaravage, V. (2012). Het voorkomen van aassoorten in de Westerschelde (MWTL gegevens, 1992-2010) Datarapportage juni 2012. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2012-03. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Escaravage, V. (2012). Sampling on the edge boxcorer bemonstering in het kader van het project “Building with Nature” Vaarrapport monstercampagne 2012. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2012-07. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Escaravage, V.; Blok, D.B.; Engelberts, A.; van Hoesel, O.J.A.; Meliefste, T.; Scott, T.; Verburg, A. (2012). Effect Meting Benthos-2011, Boxcorer bemonstering bij de monitoring voor de Zandwinning MV2 Vaarrapport voorjaar 2011. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2012-01. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Hummel, H. (2012). The 2012 MARS Survey. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2012-12. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Hummel, H. (2012). The 2012 MARS Business Plan. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2012-13. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Pronker, A.E.; Peene, F; Donner, S.; Wijnhoven, S.; Geijsen, P.; Bossier, P.; Nevejan, N.M. (2012). Hatchery cultivation of the common cockle (Cerastoderma edule L.): from conditioning to grow-out. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2012-02. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Sokolowski, A.; Wolowicz, M.; Asmus, H.; Asmus, R.; Carlier, A.; Gasiunaité, Z.; Gremare, A.; Hummel, H.; Lesutiené, J.; Razinkovas, A.; Renaud, P.E.; Richard, P.; Kedra, M. (2012). Is benthic food web structure related to diversity of marine macrobenthic communities? Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2012-09. NIOZ: Yerseke.
van Belzen, J.; Van de Koppel, J.; Herman, P.; Bouma, T. (2012). Disturbing signs: do real ecosystems slow down towards the verge of collapse? Poster presented at the Netherlands Annual Ecology Meeting 7 & 8 February, 2012 (NAEM). Department of Spatial Ecology, Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research: Yerseke.
Van den Brink, A.M.; Wijnhoven, S.; McLay, C.L. (2012). Competition and niche segregation following the arrival of Hemigrapsus takanoi in the formerly Carcinus maenas dominated Dutch delta. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2012-04. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Van Den Brink, F.W.B.; Van der Velde , G.; Wijnhoven, S. (2012). Diversity, occurrence and feeding traits of caddisfly larvae as indicators for ecological integrity of river-floodplain habitats along a connectivity gradient. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2012-05. [S.n.]: Yerseke.
Walker, P.D.; Wijnhoven, S.; Van der Velde , G. (2012). Macrophyte presence and growth form influence macroinvertebrate community structure. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2012-06. NIOZ: Yerseke.
Wijnhoven, S.; Escaravage, V.; Blok, D.B.; Dekker, A.; Scott, T. (2012). Proef zandsuppletie Oosterschelde Het macrobenthos van de Galgeplaat, situatie najaar 2011 en veranderingen sinds de aanleg. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2012-08. NIOZ: Yerseke. 47 pp.
Wijnhoven, S.; Kromkamp, J.; Van Ryckegem, G.; Van den Bergh, E.; Speybroeck, J. (2012). Ecologisch functioneren en diversiteit soorten. Rapportage in het kader van het project ‘Ontwikkeling Evaluatiemethodiek MONEOS’ en hoofdstuk 6 van het eindrapport ‘Evaluatiemethodiek systeemmonitoring Schelde-estuarium'. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2010-12. NIOO-CEME: Yerseke. 160 pp.
Wijsman, J.; Goudswaard, K.; Wijnhoven, S.; Escaravage, V. (2012). MEMO: Gemeenschapsanalyse bodemschaafgegevens 2009-2012 en boxcorermonsters 2009–2011 in de Zeeuwse banken. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2012-11. NIOZ: Yerseke. 52 pp.
Witbaard, R.; Duineveld, G.; Bergman, M.J.N. (2012). Progress report on the study into the dynamics and growth of Ensis directus in the near coastal zone off Egmond, in relation to environmental conditions in 2011. NIOZ-rapport, 2012(7). NIOZ: Texel. 58 pp.
Cardoso, J.; Nieuwland, G.; Wijsman, J.; Witbaard, R.; van der Veer, H.W. (2011). Validation of a method for age determination in the razor clam Ensis directus. NIOZ-rapport, 2011(9). NIOZ: Texel. 33 pp.
Holzhauer, H.; Maris, T.; Meire, P.; Van Damme, S.; Nolte, A.; Kuijper, K.; Taal, M.; Jeuken, C.; Kromkamp, J.; van Wesenbeeck, B.; Van Ryckegem, G.; Van den Bergh, E.; Wijnhoven, S. (2011). Evaluatiemethodiek Schelde-estuarium fase 2. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2011-14. NIOO-CEME: Yerseke. 262 pp.
Wijnhoven, S. (2011). Is Corophium multisetosum Stock, 1952 an exotic invasive species in Europe? Distribution, habitat and recent observations in the Netherlands. Monitor Taskforce Publication Series, 2011-03. [S.n.]: Yerseke.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.