Defense Litigation Insider Helping you navigate a clear path through complex litigation.

Monthly Archives: January 2017

U.S. Supreme Court to Weigh In on Personal Jurisdiction as State Courts Have Gone Rogue

Posted in California Courts, Litigation Trends

Ever since the United States Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Daimler A.G. v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), in which the Court held that general personal jurisdiction exists over a corporation only where the corporation is fairly regarded as “at home,” many plaintiffs and state courts have attempted to distinguish Daimler in an effort… Continue Reading

The Delaware LLC is Not a Corporation and Should Be Subject to a Different Veil Piercing Analysis

Posted in Corporate Litigation, Delaware Courts, Litigation Trends

“Veil piercing” is an equitable remedy that allows a plaintiff with a claim against an entity to obtain relief from the entity’s owners, in spite of laws providing for limited liability.  When the owners provide personal guarantees or otherwise contract around liability protections, or when the owners are sued in their own right based on… Continue Reading

Distracted Driving Lawsuits: Apple’s Responsibility or an Attempt to limit Drivers’ Personal Responsibility?

Posted in California Courts, Litigation Trends, Products Liability

On December 23, 2016 in Santa Clara, California, in Modisette v. Apple, Inc., 16CV304364, the family of a five-year-old girl killed in a car crash on Christmas Eve 2014 filed a lawsuit against Apple alleging that Apple’s FaceTime application distracted a driver and caused the death of Moriah Modisette.  Like the majority of distracted driver… Continue Reading

Class Dismissed: Supreme Court Declines to Resolve Circuit Split on Class Action Jurisdiction

Posted in Litigation Trends, Professional Liability

The United States Supreme Court declined a petition for certiorari on Monday, January 9, in the matter of Ascira Partners, LLC v. Daniel, dashing hopes that the Justices would resolve conflicting federal law on jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The petition involved a massive medical malpractice action in Ohio which originated from medical care… Continue Reading

Another Blow to “Every Exposure” in Asbestos Litigation

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Louisiana Courts, Toxic Tort

Causation opinions from plaintiff’s experts in asbestos exposure cases have undergone a puzzling evolution as they continue to face successful challenges. From “every exposure” to “every exposure above background” and “every significant exposure,” each iteration has attempted to make the same end run around the plaintiff’s burden of proof by stating that all exposures in… Continue Reading

California Supreme Court Recognizes a Duty of Care to “Take-Home” Plaintiffs

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, California Courts, Litigation Trends, Toxic Tort

Last month, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling on two coordinated “take-home” asbestos exposure cases, in which it held that employers using asbestos in the workplace have a duty of care to protect an employees’ household members from exposure to asbestos through off-site contact with employees who carry asbestos fibers on their work clothing and/or… Continue Reading