Case Updates

In this case of first impression, Live Life Bella Vita, LLC. V. Cruising Yachts, Inc., the court was asked to determine whether indemnity claims constitute separate claimants under the Limitation of Liability Act (otherwise known as the "Limitation Act"). The shipowners, Live Life Bella Vita, LLC, filed a limitation action in federal court seeking to cap their liability following a severe injury suffered by a maintenance diver, Eduardo Loaiza. The district court initially enjoined all related suits pursuant to the Limitation Act but later dissolved the injunction, allowing Loaiza to pursue his state court claims under the "single claimant" exception. However, when third-party indemnity and contribution claims were filed in the federal proceeding, the ship owners challenged the district court's decision, arguing that the presence of these third-party claims created a multiple claimant scenario under the Limitation Act.

As Governor Kathy Hochul prepares to make a pivotal decision regarding the contentious SB485B legislation on her desk, the potential ramifications for New York's consumers and the business community demand urgent attention. This bill, which has already been vetoed twice, seeks to significantly alter the landscape of wrongful death claims in the state. Its passage would not only exacerbate the already rising costs of liability insurance but also create a host of unintended consequences that could destabilize New York's legal and economic environments.

A recent First Circuit decision, Admiral Insurance Company v. Tocci Building Corporation, No.22-1462 (1st, Cir. 2024), clarified the limits of commercial general liability (CGL) coverage. The core issue revolved around whether Tocci's commercial general liability (CGL) policy required Admiral to defend against claims of property damage caused by subcontractor errors within a larger construction project. The court examined whether damage to non-defective parts of a project, resulting from faulty subcontractor work, qualified as "property damage" caused by an "occurrence" under Massachusetts law. Although recognizing evolving interpretations, the court upheld the district court's decision that Admiral was not obligated to defend or indemnify in this case.

As businesses increasingly rely on digital tools to connect with and understand their customers, the use of tracking software has become widespread. This technology enables companies to collect valuable data about user behavior, allowing for personalized marketing, better website performance, and optimized customer experiences. However, recent legal cases have raised important questions about the boundaries of tracking software and its intersection with privacy laws, such as the 1968 Wiretap Act. This article examines the recent case of Kathleen Vita v. New England Baptist Hosp., No. SJC-13542 (Mass. Oct. 24, 2024), which hinges on whether the hospitals' use of tracking software constitutes a violation of the Wiretap Act, particularly in terms of "communication" and "interception." The Wiretap Act's primary aim is to prevent unauthorized surveillance of personal conversations. Traditionally, courts have applied the Act narrowly, focusing on direct person-to-person exchanges. Applying the Act to the passive collection of user data on a website represents a novel and potentially far-reaching interpretation.

In a case that serves as a critical reminder of the power and limits of absolute privilege in litigation, the Illinois appellate court recently upheld the dismissal of defamation claims in a complex legal dispute over the administration of New Market Tax Credit programs. When accusations fly and reputations hang in the balance, the line between protected legal maneuvering and actionable defamation can be razor thin. This case illustrates the scope of absolute privilege, which can shield certain statements made in the course of litigation and explores when inflammatory statements and claims cross into illegal territory. By examining the consequences of reckless assertions and potential untruths in the course of legal proceedings, this ruling places the spotlight on the importance of absolute privilege as a potential defense and clarifies what is required to secure relief for defamatory litigation-fueled allegations.

Florida was once a hotbed for punitive damage awards, earning it a spot on the ATLA judicial hellhole report for several years. While tort reform has curbed many runaway verdicts, Florida remains a source of litigation concern. In the case of Orlando Health, Inc. v. Mohan, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed a decision granting punitive damages against a medical provider. Orlando Health, Inc. v. Mohan, 2024 WL 2484435 (Fla. 5th DCA May 24, 2024).The claim arose from a medical malpractice case arising out of a wrong site surgery. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to allow punitive damages for gross negligence but reversed the ruling regarding negligent credentialing, as the medical provider could not be held responsible on that front since its agent had been exonerated.

In a lesson on the importance of timely claims, the Appellant Division, Second Department in New York dismissed a homeowner's breach of contract suit over alleged construction defects in her basement remodel. The case, Hillaire v. Jose A. Torres, ___ N.Y.S.3d ___, 2024 WL 3281628 (2d Dep’t 2024), involved claims that the defendant botched a flooring installation back in 2015. Since the plaintiff filed their lawsuit nearly seven years after the work was completed- well past New York's six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract- the complaint was ruled too little, too late. The court's decision also made it clear that pandemic-era extensions to filing deadlines, while generous, did not save this claim.

In a complex intersection of civil and criminal law, the Texas Supreme Court recently addressed an interesting Fifth Amendment application to civil discovery proceedings. The case arose from a personal injury lawsuit filed by plaintiffs who sustained injuries when their vehicle was rear-ended by the defendant, Taylor Brock Peters. Following the accident, Peters faced not only civil liability but also criminal charges for two counts of intoxication assault with a motor vehicle. During discovery, the trial court ordered Peters to disclose the establishments that served him alcohol on the night of the accident. Peters refused, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Significant amendments to Florida's rules of civil procedure are on the horizon, taking effect on January 1, 2025. The amendments will impact a variety of areas, ranging from pretrial discovery and motion practice to judicial case management, and trial continuances. The changes issued by the Florida Supreme Court are designed to streamline civil case administration, better ensure timely judicial decisions, and generally improve efficiency in civil litigation. Notably, the rules introduce new standards for complex cases, deadlines for discovery, and changes to trial procedures. Attorneys and legal professionals practicing in Florida should familiarize themselves with these developments to navigate the new procedural landscape effectively. Although the amendments are intended to bring improvement, many of these changes are likely to be marred by early growing pains for practicing attorneys as well as the judges who are already under extreme pressure associated with court dockets already saturated from the influx of new case filings that were spurred by recent tort reform.

As evidenced by recent events as well as trends over the last decade, the risks of political turmoil and civil unrest are drastically increasing. These risks range from terrorist acts to protests and civil commotion to riots to looting and vandalism. Strikes, riots, and civil commotion (SRCC) threats, as they are characterized in insurance policies, not only pose a significant danger to the public but are also estimated to cost businesses millions of dollars every year. Although insurance carriers have traditionally included SRCC coverage as part of a standard policy, the increased frequency and severity of these risks have made this practice impracticable.

In the noteworthy case of Bonilla v. Verges Rome Architects, 382 So. 3d 62 (La. 2024), the Supreme Court of Louisiana addressed a key issue surrounding the limits of an architect's and contract administrator's contractual obligations in construction projects. The case stemmed from a serious injury sustained by a subcontractor's employee during a demolition project. The plaintiff filed a negligence claim against Verges Rome Architects ("VRA"), the architect and project's contract administrator, alleging that VRA owed a duty to ensure workplace safety. The Louisiana Supreme Court, however, determined that no such duty existed under the terms of the construction contract or Louisiana law regarding the interpretation of contracts.

Recent investigations into construction injury lawsuits in New York City have exposed alarming trends that raise serious questions about the integrity of the legal system. An unsettling pattern has emerged: a high concentration of injury claims from residents of specific apartment buildings and neighborhoods, all linked to a small number of law firms. This phenomenon coupled with powerful RICO actions brought by Tradesman and the ripple effects not only suggests the possibility of widespread fraud but also threatens the socio-economic stability of New York's legal and insurance landscape.

On June 3, 2024, Governor Jared Polis signed Colorado House Bill 24-1472 into law, marking a pivotal change in the state's legal framework around damages. This legislation significantly raises the limits on noneconomic damages, wrongful death claims, and medical malpractice awards, while also allowing siblings to bring wrongful death actions in certain cases. These updates carry substantial consequences for businesses and insurers operating in Colorado. This article explores the practical outcomes of these changes and how they may impact litigation and risk management.

Illinois recently passed SB2979, amending the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). This amendment narrows the scope of liability for businesses that collect biometric data, addressing concerns raised by the Illinois Supreme Court in Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc., 2023 IL 128004. In its opinion, the court had suggested legislative review of BIPA's potential for excessive damages, and SB2979 now aims to provide that clarity.

In a recent, pivotal decision, Stone v. Alameda Health System, the Supreme Court of California held that public employers are not subject to civil penalties pursuant to California’s Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) and that the California meal and rest break laws at issue in the case do not apply to public agencies. The Court further clarified that Labor Code section 220(b)’s definition of “municipal corporation” includes all public employers.

In a notable decision, the Oregon Court of Appeals recently declined to allow a defendant to pursue a comparative fault defense in a habitability lawsuit. By way of summary, Ms. Thomas, the Plaintiff, was a tenant in a duplex owned by Dillon Family Limited Partnership, the Defendant. The refrigerator in Plaintiff’s apartment began to leak water leaving puddles that extended into her adjacent living room. Thomas v. Dillon Family Limited Partnership II, 319 Or. App. 429, 420 (2022). Plaintiff indicated that she was having to mop puddles up at least twice a day. Id. 

In a significant shift, The California Supreme Court in Quach v. California Commerce Club, Inc., has aligned state law with a recent development in federal precedent, eliminating the arbitration-specific prejudice requirement when determining waiver of the right to enforce arbitration agreements. Historically, both California and federal courts required a showing of prejudice to establish waiver in the context of arbitration, a standard rooted in a policy favoring arbitration over litigation. However, following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. (2022) 596 U.S. 411, which clarified that arbitration agreements should be treated like any other contract, the California Supreme Court has now repealed its prejudice requirement. This decision underscores the principle that arbitration agreements are placed on equal footing with other contracts, ensuring that waiver determinations are based solely on general contract law principles.

In Limprasert v. PAM Specialty Hospital of Las Vegas LLC (2024), the Nevada Supreme Court addressed two critical issues concerning claims for professional negligence in Nevada. First, it clarified the standard for distinguishing professional negligence claims (which requires a supporting affidavit from a medical expert under NRS 41A.071) from ordinary negligence claims. This clarification effectively overruled the common knowledge exception previously established in Estate of Curtis v. South Las Vegas Medical Investors, LLC, 136 Nev. 350, 466 P.3d 1263 (2020). Second, the court confirmed that pursuant to Baxter v. Dignity Health, 131 Nev. 759, 357 P.3d 927 (2015), NRS 41A.071, the affidavit requirement was satisfied if it was incorporated by reference in the complaint and executed before the complaint was filed.

In the ongoing matter of North River Insurance Company v. James River Insurance Company, the Ninth Circuit recently turned to the Nevada Supreme Court to resolve an important legal question that could determine the outcome of a recurring dispute between insurers. The case arises from a wrongful death lawsuit following a murder at a Las Vegas apartment complex. The settlement exceeded the primary insurer’s policy limits, but it remained within the combined limits of both the primary and excess insurers. The excess insurer, after covering the remainder of the settlement, filed suit against the primary insurer in California federal court, claiming a breach of its duty to settle as well as the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The primary insurer moved to dismiss the claims on the grounds that Nevada does not recognize equitable subrogation as between a primary insurer and excess insurer, and the district court (Central District of California) granted the motion. The excess insurer appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who in turn, sought clarity on whether Nevada law permits equitable subrogation between insurers in such cases. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to the Nevada Supreme Court pursuant to Nev. R. App. P. 5(a), stating that the answer to the certified question is essential to the outcome of the case:

Under Nevada law, can an excess insurer state a claim for equitable subrogation against a primary insurer where the underlying lawsuit settled within the combined policy limits of the insurers?

The Court of Appeal just issued a groundbreaking case in Audish v. Macias (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 740 (review denied August 21, 2024), which provides welcome relief to the defense community with respect to its ability to establish the reasonable market value of past and future medical treatment claimed by personal injury plaintiffs. The case is important for at least two reasons: (1) it bolsters the import of Cuevas v. Contra Costa County (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 163, which held, in a medical malpractice case, that future Medi-Cal and other insurance benefits are admissible for determining the reasonable value of medical services; and (2) it provides a rebuttal case to language in Pebley v. Santa Clara Organics, LLC (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1266, which rejected the notion that future Medicare/insurance benefits are admissible to establish the reasonable value of medical services.

In an important ruling for commercial property owners, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Alejandra Padilla v. Young II An, (A-43-22) addressed the owners' obligations regarding the maintenance of public sidewalks and answered the question: Do owners of vacant commercial lots have a duty to maintain adjacent public sidewalks in reasonably good condition?

In a ruling that has significant implications for the construction industry, the Massachusetts Appeals Court in Lessard v. R.C. Havens & Sons, Inc., recently clarified the scope of coverage under commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies concerning construction defects. For the first time, the court determined that construction defects, standing alone, do not qualify as "property damage" under these policies. This decision that could reshape the landscape of liability for contractors and homeowners alike, potentially altering how parties approach risk management, contract negotiations, and insurance underwriting. As the industry grapples with the ramifications of this ruling, stakeholders may need to reconsider their legal strategies and the allocation of responsibility in construction projects. This landmark decision not only shifts the understanding of what constitutes insurable damage, but also sets a precedent that could influence future legal interpretations and coverage disputes across the nation.

In a new arbitration-related ruling, a California court in the case of Cook v. University of Southern California, found that an arbitration agreement requiring an employee to arbitrate all claims, even those not arising from the employment relationship, for an infinite amount of time, was unconscionable and entirely unenforceable. The decision arose from a lawsuit in which the plaintiff alleged discrimination and harassment by her employer and two co-workers. Despite the defendants' collective motion to compel arbitration based on an agreement signed by the plaintiff as a condition of employment, the court denied the motion, citing the purportedly pervasive unconscionability of the agreement. The defendants appealed the decision.

The "Transparency and Limitations on Foreign Third-Party Litigation Funding" recently went into effect on August 1, 2024. This legislation is designed to regulate the involvement of foreign and third-party entities in litigation funding to increase transparency and protect the integrity of the legal process. This article outlines some provisions and implications of the law which is comprised of Louisiana R.S. 9:3580.1 through R.S. 9:3580.7, and R.S. 9:3580.10 through 3580.12.

In a significant ruling underscoring the boundaries of liability in workplace injuries involving independent contractors, the California Court of Appeal recently addressed a case stemming from an accident at the San Francisco International Airport. In Bowen v. Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc., A166793 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC17561849), the court found that the retained control exception to the Privette doctrine was not sufficiently proven by the plaintiff.

In a recent legal battle before the Connecticut Supreme Court, a plaintiff challenged her employer's handling of a hostile work environment claim after facing racially discriminatory statements from a coordinator in her department. O'Reggio v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities et al., highlights the complexities of defining supervisory roles and the implications for vicarious liability in discrimination cases.

In a significant ruling, Texas Department of Insurance et al. v. Stonewater Roofing, Ltd., Co., 2024 WL 2869414 (June 7, 2024), the Texas Supreme Court upheld state regulations mandate licensing for public insurance adjusters and prohibit dual roles as both a contractor and adjuster. This decision came after Stonewater Roofing, a roofing contractor, challenged the constitutionality of these regulations, arguing they violated First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court's decision has critical implications for insurers and contractors, reinforcing the legal boundaries within which they must operate.

In a recent ruling, the Nevada Court of Appeals delivered an important decision in the case of Igtiben v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of the State of Nev., No. 86567-COA (Nev. App. Dec. 21, 2023) shedding light on the significance of medical records in medical malpractice claims. The case centered around a prisoner who passed away in a hospital after receiving medical treatment. This ruling has far-reaching implications for professionals involved in the defense of medical malpractice claims in Nevada, emphasizing the critical role of thorough medical record examination in triggering inquiry notice.

Product manufacturers and sellers faced with strict products liability claims often look to industry and government safety standards in formulating their defense. While most states permit this type of evidence, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Sullivan v. Werner Co., 306 A.3d 846 (Pa. 2023), has again reaffirmed Pennsylvania's stance that its Courts will not follow this trend. Thus, evidence of this nature will not be allowed to be introduced in strict products liability cases in the Commonwealth. In what many consider an outdated viewpoint, the Pennsylvania high court ruled that the introduction of this evidence would only confuse the issue for jurors. Practitioners defending products liability cases in Pennsylvania should apprise themselves of the details of this decision and plan their case strategies accordingly.

In CBRE v. The Superior Court of San Diego County/Johnson, No. D083130 (June 4, 2024), the court determined that a written contract is not required to apply the Privette doctrine. The court found that the hirers delegated control over tenant improvements to the contractor before the litigant's injury occurred. Additionally, the court found that no exceptions to the Privette doctrine applied in this case.

In a case of first impression in Colorado, on May 23, 2024, the Court of Appeals has established a test for evaluating claims of actual discharge under state law. The case, Potts v. Gaia Children LLC, No. 23CA1008 (May 23, 2024), centers on a plaintiff who appealed the district court's dismissal of her wrongful discharge claim. The Colorado appellate court concluded the allegations could substantiate a finding of actual discharge and adopted a definition of "actual discharge" in line with federal court holdings.

In the case of Truck Ins. Exch. V. Kaiser Cement, Case No. 5273179, 2004 WL 3016941 (June 17, 2024), the Supreme Court of California examined when a first-level excess insurer's indemnity obligations attach in a situation involving continuous injury that potentially triggered multiple policy periods. It concluded that the language contained in the first-level excess policies was materially identical to that of the language in the higher-level policies. Based on this assessment, it concluded that the first-level excess policies are best interpreted as requiring only vertical exhaustion.

In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court recently delivered a significant opinion in maritime law. The holding in Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co, LLC, No. 22-500 stands for the proposition that choice-of-law clauses in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law, subject only to very narrow limited exceptions.

The recent Illinois appellate case of King v. El Paraiso Del Pacifico, Inc., 2024 IL App. (2d) 230026, has raised important considerations regarding the duty of care businesses owe to their patrons, particularly in relation to accidents caused by out-of-control drivers. In this case the court held that a car crashing through the front entrance of a restaurant was reasonably foreseeable and not an “intervening or superseding” cause of a patron’s injuries. The court determined that the accident fell within the scope of the business's duty of care. This decision is of high importance because previously the Illinois Supreme Court found there was reluctant to impose a duty to protect invitees against out-of-control drivers. This article will delve into the facts of the case, highlight the significance of this decision, and discuss its implications for businesses and insurance carriers in the state of Illinois.

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled unanimously that standard commercial property insurance policies do not cover business interruption losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, aligning with many other courts around the country. The case, AC Ocean Walk, LLC v. Am. Guarantee Liab. Ins. Co. _ N.J._ (Jan. 24, 2024), centered around a casino operator in Atlantic City who claimed losses due to the presence of COVID-19 particles on its premises and the resulting governmental shutdown of its operations.

How do you define the term "contractor?" In the case of California Specialty Insulation Inc. v. Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Company, No. B324805 (2024), the court ultimately honored the reasonable expectations of the insured and ordered that the insurer defend and indemnify in an underlying suit stemming from the policy. This case involves a commercial general liability insurance policy issued by Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Company (Allied) to California Specialty Insulation, Inc. (CSI). The central issue is whether Allied World is obligated to defend and indemnify CSI against a negligence claim stemming from a construction site accident. The dispute hinges on the interpretation of a policy exclusion for bodily injury to employees of any "contractor," a term not defined in the policy.

The United States Supreme Court finally clarification what lower courts must do when a case is compelled to arbitration. In a unanimous decision from Justice Sotomayor, the Court decided that lower courts must stay cases subject to arbitration and that the lower courts have no discretion to dismiss those cases.

The Communications Decency Act, codified at 47 U.S.C. Section 230, has long been a foundational tenet of law governing the internet, providing crucial protections for online platforms. However, it is under intense scrutiny once again as the law faces significant re-examination and potential reform. The new legislation proposes to sunset Section 230 during the final week of 2025, effectively setting a timer on Congressional action and giving lawmakers only eighteen months to establish a new standard for liability. This legislative move seeks to address mounting concerns about the role of online platforms in hosting and moderating user-generated content. At the crux of the issue is whether online platforms can be held responsible for the content that users post.

In a per curiam opinion, the Texas Supreme Court reversed a $12 million jury nuclear verdict, determining that counsel for the Plaintiff improperly suggested in his closing arguments that the defense was motivated by gender and racial bias. In the case of Roberto Alonzo and New Prime Inc. v. John, 647 S.W.3d 764, 770-71 (Tex. May 10, 2024).The court determined that an unprovoked and uninvited personal attack on the defense counsel was improper and inflammatory while completely unsupported by any evidentiary basis presented in the case.

In the case of Pine Management v. Colony Insurance Company, 23-624-cv (2dCir. Mar. 26, 2024), the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York provided essential guidance regarding when a pre-suit demand constitutes a claim triggering the obligation to notify your liability insurer under New York law.

The Michigan Supreme Court recently approved a series of significant amendments to Rule 702 of the Michigan Rules of Evidence (MRE). Effective December 1, 2023 and May 1, 2024,¹ the Michigan rule was updated to align the state with Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE). Michigan now stands among the first states to fully adopt this updated federal standard.

The recent ruling from the New York Court of Appeals has broadened the protective umbrella of Labor Law 241(6), deeming a plastic covering a foreign substance as defined in Industrial Code section 23-1.7(d). Additionally, the court determined that the presence of the plastic covering did not qualify as an integral part of the work, highlighting the defendant's responsibility in creating an "avoidable danger." This opinion presents a significant challenge for defendants as it raises the risk of liability for owners, contractors, and their representatives in construction site accident cases. The case of Bazdaric v. Almah Partners LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 00847 (decided on February 20, 2024), centers on a workplace injury that occurred while an employee was completing a painting project. The plaintiffs sought damages for injuries that resulted from a slip and fall on a plastic covering placed over the top of a stopped escalator.

In the complex world of property ownership and community governance, conflicts often emerge concerning the responsibilities of condominium associations versus individual unit owners. In Canner v. Governors Ridge Ass'n, 348 Conn. 726(Conn. Apr. 2, 2024), the Connecticut Supreme Court offered important insight regarding the intricate web of obligations outlined in Connecticut’s Common Interest Ownership Act (CIOA), as well as the relevant statute of limitations analysis governing such claims. The plaintiffs raised concerns over the allegedly defective foundations of their units within a common interest community. Central to the plaintiffs' argument were assertions of negligence in design and construction, coupled with the association's purported failure to uphold its duties under CIOA. Conversely, the defendant condominium association invoked a statute of limitations defense, contending that the plaintiffs' claims were time barred. This case not only underscores the often complex interplay between contractual and tortious obligations, but also highlights the role of statutory interpretation in resolving disputes within common interest communities and clarifies the statute of limitations applicable to such claims.

The Oregon Supreme Court's recent decision in Trebelhorn v. Prime Wimbledon SPE, LLC, 372 Or.27 (2024) carries significant legal implications regarding excessive punitive damage awards in premises liability cases. The case, which centered on a tenant's injury due to a defective walkway at an apartment complex, sparked a legal battle that delved into a nuanced constitutional conversation surrounding the implications of punitive damages.

In a recent landmark legal development, the 1st District Appellate Court of Illinois rendered a pivotal decision addressing the interplay between "catchall exclusions" in insurance coverage and claims involving the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). This seminal case, National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, et. al. v. Visual Pak Co., 2023 IL App (ast) 221160, carries profound implications for both the business and insurance sectors. In this article we delve into the reverberations of this court ruling, exploring its ramifications for businesses, insurers, and policyholders alike.

On April 17, 2024, in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Supreme Court changed the test for determining whether an employer violates Title VII's anti-discrimination provisions when it transfers an employee even if the transfer does not result in a loss of pay or benefits. Instead of having to show that the employee's job transfer resulted in "significant harm," the employee now only needs to show that the transfer resulted in "some harm."

As fees and costs associated with litigation continue to rise, along with lengthy discovery periods and uncertain trials, those who require legal services can incur great costs in connection with litigation. As a result, such individuals and their attorneys are increasingly looking elsewhere for funding. This has led to a rise in third-party litigation agreements. These agreements can provide a major benefit to plaintiffs as they can decrease the financial risk when pursing what may be a frivolous lawsuit.

In an effort to improve traffic safety and address volatile conditions concerning transportation, Texas Governor Gregg Abbott signed two significant transportation bills into law in 2023. House Bill 1885 grants the Texas Transportation commission the authority to establish temporary speed limits under specific circumstances, while House bill 2190 brings a crucial change in the terminology used to describe transportation-related incidents. These legislative updates aim to increase safety and promote a more precise understanding of road situations.

Washington courts provided new guidance and protection for employers handling industrial injury and occupational disease claims. Previously, under the compensable consequences doctrine, employers risked being stuck with covering unrelated complications or aggravation with no causal connection to an industrial injury.

In a pivotal decision with far-reaching implications, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Johnson v. Toll Brothers, Inc. et al., 302 A.3d 1231 (2023), delivered a victory for the construction industry. The Supreme Court's affirmation of the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the contractor, which was grounded in the application of the Statute of Repose, has significant implications for the construction and insurance industries. This article delves into the intricacies of the case, explores its significance for these industries, and sheds light on the decision's broader impact on the construction landscape in Pennsylvania.

The Washington "My Health My Data" Act (MHMD) was passed by the Washington State Legislature in 2023 and is aimed at revamping health data ownership and privacy. The law details specific requirements that regulated entities must comply with in their use and collection of personal health data. The Act is significant because it is the first of its kind to add an extra layer of protection on top of what is already required by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

The New York legislature recently enacted significant amendments to New York General Obligations Law § 5-336, the law on non-disclosure agreements, which expand the restrictions on non-disclosure agreements. The amendments specifically relate to provisions aimed at keeping allegations of discriminatory harassment and retaliation confidential. These changes became effective on November 17, 2023. In addition, the 21-day waiting period for a complainant to consider a non-disclosure agreement before signing is now waivable by complainants for matters settled pre-litigation and the law now applies to claims of discriminatory harassment and/or retaliation brought by independent contractors as well. Employers and risk managers should take note of these changes and modify their settlement agreements accordingly.

The world of insurance claims management was rocked recently when a federal court in Michigan clarified in-house counsel , may not invoke attorney client privilege to shield their routine claim-handling activities. The case, Wolverine Worldwide Inc. v. The American Insurance Company et. al., highlighted an often encountered, but rarely discussed circumstance of insurance claims management. This significant ruling underscores the importance of focusing on the nature of the work performed rather than the individual's professional title.

A recent case out of New England serves as a reminder for lawyers practicing in all jurisdictions that witness coaching, whether in a remote environment or in person, violates the ethical rules. After coaching a client during a remote deposition, a lawyer practicing in Massachusetts was faced with disciplinary action for his conduct. The Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers of the Supreme Judicial Court ("BBO") issued a public reprimand and noted that although disciplinary actions relating to remote proceedings are relative anomalies, their oversight is active and expected to increase over time.

The United States Supreme Court is set to decide Smith v. Spizzirri, and resolve a federal circuit split as to whether federal courts must stay lawsuits or dismiss lawsuits where arbitration is compelled.

On February 2, 2024, the Texas Supreme Court answered a certified question from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Mario Rodriguez v. Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana. In Rodriguez, the Texas Supreme Court held that the plain language of Section 542A.007(a) of the Texas Insurance Code makes clear that payment of an appraisal award, plus applicable statutory interest, extinguishes an insured's right to recover attorney's fees in litigation. The Court reasoned that because the insured received payment of the appraisal award—which covers his claim under the insurance policy—the insured would have no remaining claim under the insurance policy for damage to or loss of covered property.

The Illinois Supreme Court recently handed down a landmark decision in Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC, 2023 IL. 129087_N.E.3d_(2023), finding that property damage that arises from the defective work can be caused by an accident that qualifies as an occurrence under an insurance policy. With this decision, Illinois joins the majority of states finding that this type of damage constitutes an occurrence. The holding is significant because it does away with a hallmark Illinois rule that damage to third-party property is required to establish property damage caused by an occurrence. In effect, this decision will alter how insurance carriers in the state handle construction defect claims moving forward. Business risk exclusions may now become the central inquiry as insurers examine whether a duty to defend is present.

In the case of Tiffany Builders, LLC v. Delrahim, Case No. B384161, the California Court of Appeals addressed the age-old issue of what constitutes a valid contract. A deal made in a coffee shop and written in a notebook that was handy at the time may qualify as valid agreement if all the basic contract principles are accomplished in the writing. Here we examine this case and the various contract theories it addressed.

For years, Oregon has been known as a jurisdiction that generally does not recognize "bad faith" claims against insurers, absent the existence of a "special relationship" outside of the insurance policy. Historically, an insured's remedies against its insurer are limited to contractual remedies, which do not include damages for emotional distress. The recent decision by the Oregon Supreme Court in Moody v. Oregon Community Credit Union, 371 Or. 772 (Or. 2023), marks a notable shift in the legal landscape concerning private rights of action under the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act (ORS 746.230). The Moody Court overturned precedent finding that under limited circumstances an insured can assert a common law negligence claim and recover emotional distress damages where an insurer violates ORS 746.230 and undermines public policy. The practical impact of this landmark case is still unfolding, but we know that it will lead to far more litigation involving first party claims that can no longer easily be disposed of via motions to dismiss.

In a recent pivotal decision, the California Supreme Court has removed a potentially important tool for employers defending Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) claims. The ruling in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. has not only eliminated a crucial defense strategy, but has also sparked discussions on effective approaches to counter large, unmanageable PAGA claims. This article addresses the origins of PAGA, the prior disparities among lower courts, the California Supreme Court's stance, and the available defense strategies for California lawyers.

Businesses may rejoice in this decision out of the Second District of California finding that a dissatisfied customer spewing falsehoods online could, in fact, be found liable for committing libel against her contractor. In the case of Paglia & Associates Construction, Inc. v. Hamilton (2023) Case No. B313864, the Court ruled that a client's bashing of her contractor online was not privileged despite the fact that the two were embroiled in a review by the Contractors State License Board. The litigation privilege did not apply where the writings were not sufficiently connected to the litigation.

As the calendar turns to 2024, New York employers should be aware of several new laws going into effect in the Empire State. As the new laws go into effect, businesses should take note of the potential implications the new laws have on businesses and employers should take proper action to revise current policies and procedures to ensure compliance.

In the case of In re Barnes, 655 S.W.3d 658 (Tex. App. 2022), the Texas court upheld an injured party’s right to protect their mental health records where a mental health or medical issue was not at the center of the controversy. It emphasized the importance of screening privileged documents before disclosure to ensure that the least amount of confidential information necessary is revealed as part of the case. A general request for mental anguish coupled with negligence and bystander liability claims was an insufficient reason to order the disclosure of the entirety of the party’s mental health records. This decision is important for defense counsel to note as the issue at hand may have been easily avoided if the request for records had been sufficiently tailored and narrowed in scope.

The judicial landscape of 2023 was marked by several pivotal decisions that significantly impacted the legal landscape on several fronts. From rulings on qualified immunity for healthcare professionals to underinsured motorists decisions, the courts played a significant role in interpreting and changing the application of significant laws in Arizona this past year. In this article, we will delve into some of the most influential court decisions and break them down.

A recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Florida in the case of Alberta S. Ellison v. Randy Willoughby, No.SC2021-1580 (November 2, 2023), has significant implications for insurance companies. The court determined that bad faith settlement proceeds from a plaintiff's uninsured motorist insurer should not be considered a "collateral source" under Florida Statute § 768.76. This article summarizes the case and provides practice pointers for the defense bar and insurance carriers in light of this ruling.