398 (1952), and lack of consideration, Maynard v. Durham & S. Ry. Co., 365 U.S. 160, 81 S.Ct. 561, 5 L.Ed.2d 486 (1961). Neither holding, however, provides any guidance as to the proper application of § 5. 6 . The Court has held, in the context of the Fair Labor Standards Act, that an employee cannot waive certain statutorily conferred rights. See Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O'Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 704, 65 S.Ct. 895, 900-01, 89 L.Ed. 1296 (1945) (noting that a "statutory right conferred on a private party, but affecting the public interest, may not be waived or released if such waiver or release contravenes the statutory policy” and thus the plaintiffs could not waive minimum or overtime wages or liquidated damages); D.A. Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108, 66 S.Ct. 925, 90 L.Ed. 1114 (1946) (<HOLDING>). While it is arguable that this is analogous
recognizing the right to waive a jury trial holding that a similar exclusion denies coverage for property damage to the particular part of the real property that is the subject of the insureds work at the time of the damage if the damage arises out of those operations holding that claim for damages based on repair estimate is not a liquidated damage holding that an insurer can normally dispute coverage even after a court determines there is a duty to defend holding that an employee could not waive his right to liquidated damage even if the release is made in settlement of a bona fide dispute as to coverage