Source: https://lewisbrisbois.com/print/7740
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:43:06+00:00

Document:
The law related to civil liability for accidents involving autonomous vehicles is new and evolving. Various companies are developing autonomous vehicles, which will provide a great number of benefits.
In December 2018, the Fifth Circuit in Randle v. Crosby Tugs, LLC affirmed the lower court’s granting of summary judgment related to the plaintiff’s claim of Jones Act negligence.
In Bunker Holdings Ltd. v. Yang Ming Liberia Corp., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals clarified what it means to order necessaries “on the order of the owner of a person authorized by the owner” under 46 U.S.C. Sec. 31342(a), so as to permit the entity furnishing necessaries to have a maritime lien.
Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Engel Insulation, Inc.
In Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., Inc., 5 Cal.5th 216 (2018), the California Supreme Court held, in answering a question certified to it by the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, that the employer’s (“Ledesma” or “L&M”) negligent hiring, retention and supervision of an employee (Hecht) who molested a student at a school construction site constitutes an “accident” as that term is used in the definition of “occurrence” in a general liability policy. In so holding, the Supreme Court found that the term “accident” is more comprehensive than the term “negligence” and includes negligence.
In Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety Indem. Co., 14 Cal.App.5th 1086 (2017), the California Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision that a duty to defend Pulte Home Corporation (“Pulte”) was triggered under three American Safety policies issued to subcontractors which included additional insured endorsements (“AIEs” or “endorsements”) affording coverage to Pulte for liability arising out of the named insured’s work, but only with respect to ongoing operations. Essentially, the Court of Appeal held that the language in the endorsements was ambiguous, such that a defense was owed to Pulte under the American Safety policies, notwithstanding American Safety’s attempt to limit coverage for Pulte to only the time that its named insured was working on a jobsite.
Does Workers’ Compensation Cover Hate Crimes in the Workplace?
Hate crimes occur in the workplace in every state. However, across the nation there is very little case law explaining whether hate crimes are compensable under workers’ compensation law. California is one of the few states that has enacted legislation explicitly prohibiting the denial of workers’ compensation benefits based solely on an assailant’s hatred of an employee-victim based on their membership to a protected class. But most states’ workers’ compensation statues are not clear on whether hate crimes are compensable under workers’ compensation.
How Will California’s Formulary for Medication Impact California Claims?
The Appellate Division of the Rhode Island Workers’ Compensation Court recently took steps to clarify the sometimes vexing problem of which carrier is to be assigned liability in an occupational disease claim. In Auda Vielman v. Tiffany Co., W.C.C. 2013-0164, the court considered the claims of various insurers for a repetitive trauma which “occurred” over numerous years performing repetitive work as a jewelry assembler for the same employer.
Can Marijuana Intoxication Be a Viable Bar to Compensability?
With the increasing number of states legalizing marijuana, it’s clear that it will have an effect on the workplace injury compensability. While marijuana as a treatment for chronic pain has become a hot topic, a lesser known way in which marijuana can complicate the workers’ compensation system is less discussed: intoxication.
Settling workers’ compensation claims is often a method used to resolve difficult cases or those cases where high benefit exposure exists. The parties typically rely on standard and boilerplate settlement documents which have been previously approved by the court. The Appellate Division of the Rhode Island Supreme Court recently considered the use of such boilerplate language, and its decision on the use of certain standard language should cause all parties to consider and review their existing settlement documents more closely.
Is Marijuana Use Now an Acceptable Form of Treatment in California?
In 2016, California voters approved Proposition 64, the California Marijuana Legalization Initiative (CMLI), which legalized recreational marijuana in the state. The CMLI joins the Medical Marijuana Regulatory and Safety Act (MMRSA), a legislative package regulating medical marijuana consumption, and the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which gives a person who uses medical marijuana a defense against specific state criminal charges for possession.
On May 7, 2018, the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Oceanic Illsabe Limited affirmed the conviction and sentencing of a vessel owner and operator for violations of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS).
On May 4, 2018, the Third Circuit in Liberty Woods International v. MV Ocean Quartz affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s action for cargo damages while onboard the MV OCEAN QUARTZ. The dismissal was based on the fact that the liability was governed under the carrier’s bill of lading, which contained a foreign forum selection clause for South Korea. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that section 3(8) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), which permits in rem suits, invalidates the South Korean forum selection clause because South Korea does not recognize in rem suits.
In Kopetic v. The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey (April 12, 2018), Lewis Brisbois’ client, a governmental entity who owns a container terminal in New York Harbor, was sued by an injured longshoreman who worked for the company operating the container terminal.
The California Legislature has narrowed the scope of enforceable indemnity agreements applicable to licensed architects, engineers, and land surveyors through its amendment of Civil Code § 2782.8. This represents an important development in the allocation of risk in the construction community, since Section 2782.8 previously limited indemnity clauses only as to design professional service contracts with local public agencies entered into on or after January 1, 2007.
Lewis Brisbois recently obtained a summary judgment dismissal of a third-party suit alleging that the firm’s insured steel company client must indemnify and defend the general contractor in an injured worker's suit.
In January of this year, the California Supreme Court finally decided the long-standing question of whether the “Right to Repair Act” (SB800) provides the sole remedy in California residential construction defect cases, or whether homeowners can also pursue common law remedies (such as strict liability, negligence, etc.) in McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 241.
Until recently, there has been a split in the courts of appeal in California regarding the extent to which contractors are excused from the prompt payment requirement for retentions. One rule permitted contractors to withhold retention payments to subcontractors if there was any good faith dispute between them, whether or not the dispute was directly related to the work for which the retention was given. The other rule limited a contractor’s ability to withhold retention payments to good faith disputes which specifically involved the work for which the retention was held.
In a recent case, Lewis Brisbois successfully moved a federal court to compel arbitration of all of a contractor’s claims against an engineering firm and to preclude an interlocutory appeal of the ruling.
Seattle Partner V. Andrew Cass recently co-wrote an article featured in the Summer 2018 issue of the New Mexico Law Review.
Blockchain Tech After Murphy – A Good Bet?
In Murphy v. NCAA, 200 L. Ed. 2d 854 (2018), the United States Supreme Court held that provisions of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PAPSA) – which prohibited the state authorization of sports gambling – were unconstitutional.
Heckart v. A-1 Self Storage, Inc.
Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Company, Inc.
In January 2018, the Fifth Circuit in In Re: In the Matter of the Complaint of Larry Doiron, Incorporated set aside the “confusing,” six-factor, fact-intensive test of maritime contract jurisdiction from Davis & Sons, in favor of the conceptual two-factor test laid out in Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Kirby.
In January 2018, the Ninth Circuit in Batterton v. Dutra Group affirmed the lower court’s decision ruling that punitive damages are awardable to seamen in unseaworthiness actions. The Court relied on its 1987 decision in Evich v. Morris, where it “squarely held that ‘[p]unitive damages are available under general maritime law for claims of unseaworthiness’” and found that the U.S.
In June 2015, an employee of Modern American Recycling Service (MARS) was killed when he stepped through an unmarked open hole on a platform. The hole was created by Manson Gulf, LLC during its decommissioning process of the platform.
Citizens of Humanity v. Applied Underwriters, Inc.
The Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Actavis, Inc.
California’s Second District Court of Appeal recently threw out a potentially valid claim for breach of contract asserted by a contractor which failed to comply with the state’s contractor’s licensing requirements. The case is noteworthy not only for the holding, but also for the prominent defendant, Tesla founder Elon Musk’s SpaceX, a private space exploration company.
The Nevada Supreme Court has found that homeowner associations have standing to pursue “representative” claims on behalf of any new purchasers who bought their units after the association had already initiated its lawsuit.
California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal in San Diego recently published a decision which benefits insureds and additional insureds, specifically developers and general contractors, at the expense of insurance companies.
Global Modular, Inc. v. Kadena Pacific, Inc.
On July 18, 2017, a Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a $38.5 million punitive damages award in a fatal workplace shooting case. See Wilson v. U.S. Sec. Assocs., 2017 PA Super 226. A three-judge panel held that the claim for punitive damages was improperly allowed because it was introduced outside the statute of limitations.
Following two hail storms which struck Hidalgo County in 2012, insured homeowners sued various insurers and claims adjustors, alleging underpayment of property damage claims and asserting statutory, contractual, and extra-contractual claims.
A towing vessel damaged a Shell mooring line attached to a Shell a mobile offshore drilling unit in the Gulf of Mexico. After paying Shell’s damages, the towing vessel owner sued the owner of the assist towboat, claiming indemnity under the Master Service Agreement (“MSA”) between them.
Atlanta Partner Seth Friedman and Associate Christopher Meeks obtained a ruling from the Georgia Court of Appeals that, absent very limited circumstances, third-party claimants do not have standing to bring a declaratory judgment action against an insurance company prior to obtaining a judgment against the insured.
On May 11, 2017, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s denial of a Joint Motion to Enforce Settlement filed by Plaintiffs and Defendants/Appellants/JR Logging Inc., Jerry Avants, Jr. and Indemnity Insurance Company of North America.
A helicopter ditched in the Gulf of Mexico due to engine failure. The pilot escaped unharmed, but the helicopter did not fare as well – it sank to the bottom.
It is no secret the state of Texas has experienced its fair share of foul weather and property damage claims within the last five years. In 2016, the state experienced one of, if not its most expensive hail and storm season in recent memory with an estimated half-a-million hail-damage claims alone.
Appellant, Crystal Seafood Company, Inc. appealed an order of the lower holding the seafood processing company and two of its officers jointly and severally liable for a $1,034,228.42 payment received pursuant to a settlement of the company’s claim arising out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April 2010.
Anadarko wished to produce minerals beneath the Chaparral Wildlife Management Area controlled by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, which, though possible, was subject to considerable restrictions and expensive.
This dispute arose out of Exxon’s attempt to obtain coverage as an additional insured under the umbrella policy issued to one of its contractors for its exposure arising from the April 2013 Exxon refinery fire which resulted in injuries to at least ten people, two of whom subsequently died. Exxon sued Lexington, as the umbrella carrier of Brock Services, who had three employees injured in the fire, for coverage. Lexington responded by moving to compel arbitration based on the arbitration clause in their policy. The trial court instead ruled the coverage dispute was easily determined “by a factual analysis requiring no interpretation of the policy itself,” and denied arbitration.
In Aldous v. Darwin Nat’l Assurance Co., he plaintiffs, Charla Aldous and her law firm Charla G. Aldous, P.C. d/b/a Aldous Law Firm, sued their professional liability insurer, Darwin National Assurance Company, regarding defense costs Darwin owed, where plaintiffs’ attorney in the underlying malpractice suit also pursued claims for the insured and against the former client.
In Ledet v. Parker Drilling Offshore USA, L.L.C., et al., following de novo review, the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal found the trial court committed reversible error in resolving disputed factual issues and granting summary judgment in Defendants’ favor.
“California has a strong public policy in favor of arbitration,” and therefore, courts generally enforce arbitration clauses unless it is clear that the language of the clause does not cover the asserted dispute.
On June 9, 2017, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed SB 807 into law. In doing so, it will cause more litigation related to Texas construction projects to remain in Texas.
Effective January 1, 2017, the Legislature has enacted a significant change to California’s strict contractor’s licensing law, providing some relief to contractors who have allowed their license to lapse through oversight or inadvertence – provided they can show that they acted “promptly and in good faith” in fixing the mistake.
More than eight years ago, the California Supreme Court handed down Crawford v. Weather Shield (2008) 44 Cal.4th 541, holding that a contractual indemnitor must immediately assume an indemnitee’s defense, irrespective of whether it is determined that indemnity is actually owed.
What Does Your Defense and Indemnity Construction Contract Mean in 2017?
California’s longstanding restrictions on defense and indemnity construction contracts have undergone several changes over the years with significant differences based upon the contract execution date.
Parties involved in California construction defect lawsuits over the past nine years are familiar with the following scenario: A developer/general contractor moves for summary adjudication of the contractual duty to defend owed by one or more subcontractors.
California’s Third District Court of Appeal recently clarified the scope of the Right to Repair Act, commonly known as SB-800 (“SB-800”).
Potential Unintended Consequences of the DOL Fiduciary Rule – Is an Overhaul in Order?
Through a Condo Owner’s Looking Glass - A Shade of Green – or is that Gray?
Attorneys Liability Protection Society, Inc. v. Ingaldson Fitzgerald, P.C.
Tidwell Enterprises, Inc. v. Financial Pacific Insurance Company, Inc.
“Take-Home” Asbestos Exposures to be Taken Down a Notch?
Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation v. Ledesma and Meyer Construction Company, Inc.
Reminiscent of the fable of the Elephant and the Blind Men, the United States Supreme Court’s splendidly opaque May 16, 2016 decision in Spokeo v. Robins has left counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants arguing that the decision supports their view of the requirement of “concrete and particularized” injury necessary to support Article III standing in Federal courts.
9th Circuit Rules Mandatory Class Action Waivers are Illegal in Morris, et al. v. Ernst & Young LLP, et al.
The United States Department of Justice (the “DoJ”) issued a memorandum on April 5, 2016 (the “Memorandum”) announcing a one-year pilot program created to encourage companies to voluntarily self-report FCPA-related misconduct and to cooperate with the Fraud Section of the Criminal Division of the DoJ.
Texas Supreme Court Weighs In On Physical Injury Under CGL Policy - Incorporation or Actual Harm?
Underwriters of Interest Subscribing to Policy No. A15274001 v. ProBuilders Specialty Insurance Co.
First American Title Ins. Co. v. Spanish Inn, Inc.
Shipping Between the United States and Canada: Does the Carmack Amendment Always Apply?
The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code is the body of law which governs the sale of alcohol in the State of Texas. To legally purchase or consume alcohol in Texas, the law requires an individual to be over the age of 21.
New York’s Appellate Division, Second Department recently reaffirmed the principle that an owner of a public establishment has no duty to protect patrons against unforeseeable and unexpected assaults.
In the typical Texas slip-and-fall or trip-and-fall case occurring on a business owner’s premises, the plaintiff is a business patron (invitee). This class of plaintiff is afforded the widest protection in a premises case.
Nevada’s construction defect laws – primarily NRS 40.600 et seq. -- have long been regarded as one (if not the) most plaintiff-friendly laws when seeking recovery for construction defects in residential construction.
Break into Sports or Broke out of Sports?
Representations and Warranties Insurance in Deals: What Is It and Why Would You Need It?
The Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One (LA), issued an opinion in Britton v. Girardi (Apr. 1, 2015, B249232) __ Cal.App.4th __, analyzing the statute of limitations in an action for misappropriation of and failure to account for settlement funds.
In March of this year, the Indiana Supreme Court issued a split decision in addressing a familiar fact pattern involving whether the extent of duty owed by an insurance broker included the duty to advise concerning the adequacy of coverage.
Representations and Warranties Insurance: What Is It and Why Would You Need It?
East et al. v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC et al.
In another recent snow and ice case, the Appellate Division, Second Department addressed the important standards for cross-claims for common-law indemnification and summary judgment asserted by a co-defendant.
Jacqueline Toombs filed a medical malpractice case against Dr. Bruce Friedman, nurse practitioner Gena Markwalter and Acute Care Consultants, Inc. alleging that they were negligent in her husband’s post-surgical care. Charles Toombs, Jr. suffered a chemical burn to his left foot while at work in 2006. He underwent surgery at Doctor’s Hospital in Augusta, Georgia, to excise his wound and to apply a skin graft.
The attorney-client privilege has been a hallmark of Anglo-American jurisprudence for almost 450 years, yet its boundaries and confines remain subject to testing from litigants—including legal malpractice plaintiffs. Thus, the California Court of Appeal recently examined the applicability of the privilege in the context of intra-firm communications between attorneys regarding a dispute with a client in a subsequent action for malpractice by that client in Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP v. Superior Court (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1214.
Brady, Vorwerck, Ryder & Caspino v. New Albertson’s, Inc.
In legal malpractice actions, jurisdictions have adopted differing approaches when applying the discovery rule to determine when a legal malpractice action accrues. In some jurisdictions, the statute of limitations for a legal malpractice action is deemed to begin to run when a claimant sustains some, but not necessarily all, damages.
Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC V. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co.
Case: Nicklos Drilling Co. v. ACE American Insurance Co.
Case:RSUI Indemnity Co. v. American States Ins. Co.
Case: Underwriters at Lloyd's Syndicate 1036 v. Danos & Curole Marine Contrs., L.L.C.
Case: Hercules Offshore v. Excell Crane & Hydraulics, Inc.
Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist.
Case: Paternostro v. Choice Hotel Int'l Servs. Corp.
Federal District Court, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Div.
Case: McBride v. Estis Well Serv., L.L.C.
United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (en banc).
768 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. La. 2014).
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a became effective March 1, 2013, and is similar to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); however, there are some key differences including, but not limited to, the requirement that the court award the prevailing party its costs and attorneys’ fees. TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a.7. Initially, Texas litigators shied away from using Rule 91a for fear of having mandatory fees imposed against their clients or carrier for filing the motion to dismiss. A body of law is slowly developing which interprets and strictly construes Rule 91a. As the common law evolves, it emboldens the Texas Defense Bar to take advantage of this powerful tactical cost shifting tool.
Plaintiffs frequently avail themselves of what has been labeled ‘Holt demands’ as was established in S. General Ins. Co. v. Holt, 262 Ga. 267 (1992). In Georgia, liability insurance providers owe a duty to an insured to act in good faith in settling their liability. ‘Holt’ demands are a means plaintiffs, through their attorneys, can set up and bring bad faith claims against their insurer if the insurer does not pay policy limits within the time specified in the pre-suit demand. Should the insurer not pay the policy limit demand within the deadline and the verdict ultimately exceeds the policy limit, the insured could file or assign the right to file an action for the entire amount of the judgment plus interest. This reality necessarily eradicates a defendant’s policy limits. In bad faith cases, juries determine whether the insurer acted in “bad faith” in rejecting the plaintiff’s pre-suit demand, consequently exposing the insured to a potential excess judgment.
Pedestrians trip and fall for many reasons. Some fall because they are clumsy or not paying attention, while others are caused to fall due to the condition of the sidewalk. The City of New York, as well as many other municipalities around New York State, is actively involved in the beautification of its sidewalks, including installation of decorative sidewalk stones or bricks. These cities also direct the planting of trees within dirt or grass-filled “tree wells” embedded in the sidewalk. However, because contractors do not install them correctly or due to the effects of weather, trees may break or die and tree wells and stones may become uneven, creating a tripping hazard and exposing the adjacent property owner to liability.
Sabia v. Orange County Metro Realty, Inc.
After the Court of Appeal reversed an order compelling arbitration, the California Supreme Court has granted the firm's petition for review in Sabia v. Orange County Metro Realty, Inc., et al., S220237. In Sabia, the plaintiffs in a putative class action alleged they signed loan modification agreements that contained an arbitration clause that only required the plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims against the defendants (not vice versa).
On October 21, 2014, in Grace v. Law, the New York Court of Appeals issued a ruling that clarifies an issue that had been somewhat unclear with respect to attorney malpractice litigation. The Court held that in a malpractice action arising from an underlying litigated matter, the failure of the malpractice plaintiff to pursue an appeal of the underlying adverse ruling will only bar a subsequent legal malpractice case if it can be determined that the appeal was likely to have succeeded.
The Washington Supreme Court issued a divided opinion in Schmidt v. Coogan, 2014 Wash. LEXIS 838, which will significantly impact future legal malpractice cases in Washington. The long-running and convoluted case presented two questions of first impression: (1) whether the elements of legal malpractice include the collectability of an underlying judgment; and (2) whether emotional distress damages are available in legal malpractice cases. Answering the first question, the Court adopted the growing trend to make the uncollectability of a underlying judgment an affirmative defense that negligent attorneys must plead and prove.
Mathis v. D.D. Dylan, LLC and Benjamin v. Trade Fair Supermarket, Inc.
In two recent decisions issued on the same day, the Appellate Division, Second Department granted summary judgment to defendants on the issue of whether a condition was open and obvious as a matter of law. Both decisions involved plaintiffs tripping over boxes. Notably, the Appellate Divisions of New York often hold that whether a condition is open and obvious is a question of fact for the jury.
The Appellate Division, Second Department recently reaffirmed the longstanding principle that a plaintiff cannot raise a new theory of liability in opposition to a motion for summary judgment if that theory is not contained within the complaint or bill of particulars. Notably, the Court did not allow the plaintiff to amend the pleadings on appeal, even though such leave is freely granted in New York.
Recently the Nevada Supreme Court declined to extend the “primary assumption of the risk” doctrine used in sporting context to injuries suffered by an invitee at the Palms Casino Sports Book who was injured when a promotional model was tossing out free souvenirs.
Case: Holden v. U.S. United Ocean Servs., L.L.C.
Case: Indem. Ins. Co. v. W & T Offshore, Inc.
The Court of Appeals, Division II issued a published opinion today in Vernon v. Aacres All Vest, LLC, Cause No. 44328-7-II, affirming in apart and reversing in part a trial court decision summarily deciding wrongful death and survivorship claims. Henry David Vernon (“David”) was born severely disabled and was completely dependent on others for his health and personal care needs.
Old Republic Construction Program Group v. The Boccardo Law Firm, Inc.
Last week, the Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District (Santa Clara), issued an opinion in Old Republic Construction Program Group v. The Boccardo Law Firm, Inc., (June 27, 2014, H037989) __ Cal.App.4th ___, analyzing the anti-SLAPP statute.
Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Super. Ct.
Today, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three (LA), issued an opinion in Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Super. Ct. (June 20, 2014, B253290) __ Cal.App.4th ___, analyzing whether summary adjudication can be granted in favor of a plaintiff on liability alone, leaving the resolution of damages to a later trial.
Dan’s Trucking, Inc. v. Kerr Contractors, Inc.
The Court of Appeals, Division II issued a published opinion on August 19, 2014 in Dan’s Trucking, Inc. v. Kerr Contractors, Inc., Cause No. 44342-2-II, which analyzes a request for a trial de novo following an arbitrator’s ruling awarding attorney fees.
In recent years, litigants in Nevada have encountered ambiguity in the law when determining whether or not a plaintiff was required to name additional cotortfeasors as defendants in order to avoid the prospect of dismissal for the failure to name a necessary and indispensable party.
The California Supreme Court recently issued an opinion in Beacon Residential etc. Assn. v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (July 3, 2014, S208173) 59 Cal. 4th 68 (2014), analyzing an issue that had not previously been decided by the California Supreme Court — whether an architect who provides services to a residential developer may be liable to the eventual purchasers of the residences for negligence in the rendition of those services in the absence of privity.
In July, The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two (Los Angeles), published its opinion in Moua v Pittulo: 228 Cal. App. 4th 107 (2014), thanks to the efforts of Los Angeles Lewis Brisbois partner Ken Feldman, who drafted a publication request on behalf of the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel.
Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. Swift Distribution, Inc.
Pyramid Technologies, Inc. v. Allied Public Adjusters, Inc.
3rd Eye Cam: Unmatched Driver Monitoring & Fleet Management By Alliance Wireless Technology, Inc.
Alliance Wireless Technologies, Inc. (AWTI) is proud to introduce their new state-of-the-art technology, 3rd Eye Cam to the Commercial Trucking Industry.
On May 16, 2014, the Texas Supreme delivered a decision which alters the practices of insurance companies and defense firms with regard to hospital liens.
The California's Second District Court Of Appeal’s issued an opinion in Dodd v. Cruz (Feb. 5, 2014, B247493) __ Cal.App.4th __, on February 5, 2014, holding that critical information from third party medical lien purchasers is discoverable because it is relevant to the "reasonable value" of past medical services provided.
When Goods Disappear or Are Damaged during Transportation, Whose Bill of Lading Controls Shipment?
It is common to have more than one transportation company involved in a shipment due to the increase in intermodal shipments, the expansion of the number of brokers, and the periodic lack of capacity that sometimes requires a carrier to outsource a shipment to another carrier.
Louisiana law allows recovery of punitive damages only if specifically provided by statute.
Michelle McCall received prenatal care at a United States Air Force clinic. McCall died from severe blood loss following the birth of her child.
On July 24, 2013, the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority – East filed a Petition in state court in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans against 97 energy company defendants, claiming hundreds of thousands of acres of the coastal lands that once protected south Louisiana are now gone as a result of oil and gas industry activities.
This decision from the Fifth Circuit provides further direction as to whether the location of an injury that occurs on an “other adjoining area” satisfies the situs requirement of the jurisdictional component as defined by the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”).
Twin City Fire Insurance Company (“Twin City”) issued a comprehensive general liability policy to its insured, a subcontractor on a Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development construction project.
On May 16, 2014, the Texas Supreme Court delivered a decision which alters the practices of insurance companies and defense firms with regard to hospital liens.
The underlying accident occurred in May 2008. Christopher and Denise Arthey, riding motorcycles, were struck head-on by a vehicle driven by David Huff in Port Aransas, Texas.
At issue was the responsibility of BP and Anadarko, co-owners of the well and co-lessors of the block in which the well was located, versus Transocean, the owner/operator of the rig, Deepwater Horizon, for civil penalties stemming from Clean Water Act violations (§311) associated with the 2010 Macondo Oil Spill.
Following a vessel collision, the Plaintiffs sued several parties, including the owner of the utility boat with which their chartered fishing boat collided and the owner’s insurers, alleging significant personal injuries.
The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two (San Francisco) published its opinion in Syers Properties III, Inc. v. Rankin (A137610, May 27, 2014) __ Cal.App.4th ___, capsulizing several important holdings in attorney fee cases.
The underlying facts of this case are that the Plaintiff, a 20 year old male, was in the process of being transported by ambulance from Imperial County to a facility in San Diego County for psychiatric evaluation under a 5150 hold.
In Texas, a hybrid of the standard premises liability claim is a claim against a property owner for inadequate security.
It is not uncommon for plaintiffs to trip over wheel stops in parking lots and these cases often result in lawsuits, especially with the large elderly population in the State of Florida.
This article discusses recent developments in an age old battle of precisely what can be put “on the board” at trial with respect to medical specials. Over the last 20 years, the answer has varied wildly.
Landowners in California are often sued by members of the public who sustain injuries when a vehicle errantly jumps a curb or sidewalk and strikes those people.
The Third Appellate District Court of Appeal (Sacramento) issued an opinion in Mark Tanner Construction, Inc., et al. v. HUB International Insurance Services, Inc. , analyzing, among other things, specific duties owed by an insurance broker. The Court of Appeal held that insurance brokers owe a limited duty to use reasonable care, diligence and judgment in procuring the insurance requested by an insured.
The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three (Los Angeles) recently issued an opinion analyzing the applicable statute of limitations and tolling periods in a malicious prosecution cause of action.
The Illinois Appellate Court recently held that the trial court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss breach of contract and negligence claims asserted by a home purchaser against a home inspector based on the provisions of the home inspection agreement that explicitly limited the recoverable damages to the cost of the home inspection.
In Skaperdas v. County Casualty Insurance Company, 996 N.E.2d 766 (4th Dist. 2013), the Illinois Appellate Court held that the trial court erred in granting a motion to dismiss made by an insurer and broker with respect to whether an insurance agent owed a duty of care to the insured.
In a recent decision, Melcher v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, the New York Court of Appeals held, in distinguishing its own prior decision, as well as a number of cases in both the trial and appellate courts, that attorney deceit claims arising under Judiciary Law § 487 are subject to a six-year statute of limitations.
It is well settled in New York that there is no “special relationship” between an insurance broker or agent and its client. The New York Court of Appeals, which is the state’s highest court, has held based on this rule that an insurance broker ordinarily has an obligation to obtain requested coverage for clients within a reasonable time or inform the client that the coverage cannot be obtained, but as a general rule the broker has no continuing duty to advise, guide or direct a client to obtain additional coverage.
You may be surprised to know that a quick, informal e-mail you send from your iPhone at a stoplight could be found to create a binding contract that results in liability for you.
Mark Tanner Construction, Inc. v. HUB International Insurance Services, Inc.
Circumstantial evidence of negligence is enough and emotional damages resulting purely from another person’s injury are not compensable.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addresses claims related to negligent construction of a condominium project.
Judge rules a forklift is a vehicle not designed for highway use or required to be registered and not subject to the compulsory liability insurance requirement under Louisiana law.
Breach of the duty to defend does not waive right to contest coverage.
The Louisiana Supreme Court had the opportunity to consider the effect of dismissal of an insured during trial, without explicitly reserving rights against the insurer.
Court holds that contractual agreement of a general contractor to merely perform its construction work in a good and workmanlike manner does not trigger the contractual liability exclusion of a commercial general liability insurance policy.
March decision denies BP’s attempt to stop businesses from recovering economic damages from the settlement proceeds.
In negligent security cases, where the plaintiff alleges that he or she was assaulted, the active tortfeasor who commits the battery may be brought in under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure (“NRCP) 19(a) as an indispensable party to the lawsuit, even if the plaintiff did not name that party as a direct defendant.
The new California case changes the objective standard to subjective one for determining putative spouse’s standing to assert wrongful death claims.
Los Angeles associates William Sung and Ryan T. Chai anaylze the ramifications of Yanez v. Plummer (Cal.App. Nov. 5, 2013).
Florida has a new Limited Liability Company Act.
On March 15, 2014, new data security and privacy requirements will take effect in China.
The Brazilian Congress has taken steps to implement its first comprehensive Internet and data protection regulations.
A European Parliament Committee approved an updated version of the E.U. Data Protection Regulation so that it could be socialized among member states in preparation for a vote this spring.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed important questions concerning the ability of attorneys in Washington State to require clients to arbitrate disputes concerning the legal services rendered.
The California Court of Appeal recently addressed an important issue in the legal malpractice area. The Court held that the malpractice plaintiff cannot prevail based on allegations that the malpractice caused plaintiff to lose the right to collect on a recovery in a lawsuit without competent evidence that the judgment would have been collectible, as speculative expert testimony about collectability will not suffice when the evidence presented demonstrated that the judgment would not have been collectible.
The Nevada Supreme Court added to its slowly-growing body of legal malpractice statute of limitations jurisprudence in Moon v. McDonald, Carano & Wilson, 306 P.3d 406, 129 Nev. Adv. Rep. 56 (2013).
San Diego Assemblers, Inc. v. Work Comp For Less Insurance Services, Inc.
The new Regulation D General Solicitation Rules impose stricter verification requirements by stating that an issuer of securities must take reasonable steps to verify the accredited status of a potential investor in a deal.
The California Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s entry of judgment which held that an insurer was obligated to pay for defense, notwithstanding $250,000 self-insured retention.
The California Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s entry of judgment which held that an insured was only entitled to lower limit for detached structure separated by clear space under homeowners policy.
Alexander v. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.
The California Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order which held that it is within trial court’s discretion to adjudicate legal issues related to property loss before requiring appraisal of the damaged property.
The California Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgement that the a insurer was entitled to appoint panel counsel and to control the defense of a lawsuit after withdrawing a reservation of rights which had created a conflict of interest entitling the insured to independent counsel.
Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Corp. v. Oxnard Hospitality Enterprise, Inc.
The California Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment which held that assault and battery exclusion in policy unambiguously applies to bar coverage of injuries sustained by nightclub dancer caused by a third party patron.
The California Second District Court of Appeal states that a commercial property policy afforded coverage for potential loss of rental income, notwithstanding that the rental agreement was not in place at the time when the building sustained damage as a result of vandalism.
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling that demand letters received from the EPA trigger duty to defend under liability policy promising to defend “suits” under Oregon law.
Federal Insurance Co. v. MBL Inc.
The California Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the decision that insurers’ reservations of rights regarding the number of occurrences, exclusion of damages outside policy periods and general reservation of rights does not trigger a right to independent counsel for the defense of underlying pollution claims.
The California Second District Court of Appeal affirms the ruling that an insurer affording underinsured benefits was entitled to pro rata contribution from the insured’s direct carrier based on the absence of statutorily permitted exclusions barring coverage under the insured’s policy.
The California Supreme Court of Appeals held that the insured is not barred from prosecuting claims for breach of the California Unfair Competition Law based on violation of insurance Code Section 790, Et. Seq.
Ninth Circuit holds that defendant’s burden of proof to establish amount-in-controversy is the preponderance of the evidence standard and that lead plaintiffs may not legally waive claims prior to class certification.
Can Outside Attorneys and Accountants Be Held Liable under the Fair Labor Standards Act?
Can an employer who violates the Fair Labor Standards Act implead its attorneys, and seek to hold them responsible for any liability in the FLSA violation action brought by its employees? In this article, we discuss a recent New York federal court decision addressing this question, and the implications it holds for the future.
Legal malpractice cases continue to be brought based on alleged “forced” or "reduced" settlements allegedly caused by the firm’s malpractice. In this article, we discuss a significant California Court decision regarding proving damages in such cases.
Policies affording coverage for occurrences taking place during policy periods did not afford coverage for the city’s negligent conduct taking place before the inception of the policies.
Risk retention group prohibited from issuing first dollar automobile liability.
The Texas Supreme Court released rules that establish mandatory expedited proceedings in civil actions seeking $100,000.
The End of Special Treatment for Exotic Imports Under Copyright Law?
On March 19, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court released its anxiously-awaited decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. deciding one of the most important copyright cases in years. In its decision, the Court held that the so-called "first-sale doctrine" applies to copies of copyrighted works manufactured outside the United States. Though the result is tempered by other limitations on importation based in trademark and patent law, this decision could still have significant impact on U.S. commerce.
How Red Does The Flag Have To Be For Copyright Owners To Have Recourse Against ISPs?
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) contains “safe harbor” protection for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from infringement claims asserted by copyright owners. In recent years there has been very high stakes litigation between large companies that own valuable copyrights and that believe ISPs are profiting from infringement of those copyrights, and the ISPs who claim that a narrowing of the statutory safe harbor that protects them would threaten the openness that people cherish about the world wide web.
Do you want to prevent others from imitating the look and feel of your business establishments? Some recent legal authority provides useful guidance for how to go about it -- and also what to avoid.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2782
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 487
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.