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

Category Archives: Litigation Trends

Subscribe to Litigation Trends RSS Feed

U.S. Supreme Court Sets the Stage For Jurisdictional Limitations in Product Liability Matters

Posted in California Courts, Litigation Trends, Missouri Courts, Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices, Products Liability

In a groundbreaking decision that follows closely on the heels of its jurisdictional decision in BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, 581 U.S. __ (May 30, 2017) (“Tyrrell”), the United States Supreme Court held that the California Supreme Court was wrong to let approximately 600 non-California residents join 86 state residents in a pharmaceutical claim against… Continue Reading

Florida Medical Malpractice Non-economic Damage Caps: Before and After Kalitan

Posted in Florida Courts, Insurance Litigation, Litigation Trends, Medical Malpractice

No, this is not déjà vu. On June 8, 2017, the Supreme Court of Florida struck down another legislative mechanism to limit damages in personal injury cases. In North Broward Hospital District v. Kalitan, the Supreme Court decided that non-economic damage caps on medical malpractice actions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Florida Constitution…. Continue Reading

Supreme Court Reaffirms Limits on General Personal Jurisdiction For Foreign Corporate Defendants

Posted in Litigation Trends

With the United States Supreme Court hearing less than 100 cases every year, it is exceedingly rare for the Court to address a particular issue more than once.  However, with state courts throughout the country failing to properly apply its 2014 decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746 (“Daimler”), the Supreme Court recently… Continue Reading

MG+M Obtains Summary Judgment Via Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia’s Decision that Plaintiff Lacked Constitutional Standing to Bring Class Action Claim

Posted in Class Action Litigation, Litigation Trends

Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP (“MG+M”) has obtained a summary judgment on behalf of client HealthPort Technologies (“HealthPort”) in Basil Crookshanks, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HealthPort and Charlestown Area Medical Center (“CAMC”).  On Wednesday, May 25, 2017, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia issued a writ of prohibition ordering the trial court to dismiss a… Continue Reading

Delaware Court of Chancery Ends Massey Stockholder Litigation Saga and Dismisses Claims

Posted in Corporate Litigation, Delaware Courts, Litigation Trends

Under Delaware law, when a derivative plaintiff loses its stockholder status as the result of a merger, the plaintiff usually also loses its standing to pursue a derivative suit on behalf of the corporation.  This rule is subject to only two limited exceptions: (1) when “the merger itself is the subject of a claim of… Continue Reading

Williams v. Yamaha Motor Co.: No Jurisdiction over a Foreign Company

Posted in California Courts, Litigation Trends, Products Liability, Uncategorized

In its recent decision in Williams v. Yamaha Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2017), the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal against a Japanese manufacturer because it was not “at home” in the forum. This consistent application of Daimler provides the benefit of predictable results. In 2013, George Williams filed suit, on behalf of himself… Continue Reading

A Tale of Two Verdicts

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Louisiana Courts, Louisiana Courts, Toxic Tort, Uncategorized

Frequently as litigators, we are faced with questions about which factors can make or break a trial. The facts of each case and skill of counsel are obvious elements to obtaining a favorable verdict, but outcomes can also be heavily influenced by the venue, pre-trial rulings, voir dire, jury instructions and even the sheer whim… Continue Reading

Veera v. Banana Republic, LLC: How the California Court of Appeals Has Reduced Proposition 64 (2004) to 40% Off its Intended Value

Posted in California Courts, Corporate Litigation, Professional Liability, Uncategorized

California’s Unfair Competition Law The Legislature enacted California’s Unfair Competition Law (the “UCL”) to deter unfair business practices and protect consumers from exploitations in the marketplace. Allen v. Hyland’s Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2014) 300 F.R.D. 643, 667. Under the UCL “unfair competition” means “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive,… Continue Reading

Missouri Supreme Court Extends Daimler and Says No to Forum Shopping

Posted in Commercial Litigation, Corporate Litigation, Delaware Courts, Employment Litigation, Missouri Courts

 On February 28, 2017, the Missouri Supreme Court joined a growing list of tribunals to apply a strict reading of the United States Supreme Court’s seminal ruling in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014). In State ex rel. Norfolk So. Ry. Co. v. Hon. Colleen Dolan, No. SC95514, the Missouri Supreme Court held… Continue Reading

Recent Appellate Court Ruling Extends the Application of the Common Law Marriage Before Injury Rule to Apply in Florida’s Wrongful Death Claims

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Complex Torts, Florida Courts, Litigation Trends, Products Liability, Toxic Tort

In a 2-1 opinion, the Fourth District Court of Appeal continued to apply the law which bars marrying into a cause of action, but a strong dissenting opinion and noted public policy concerns could trigger further review. In Florida, as in various other jurisdictions, the courts follow the common law marriage before injury rule. This… Continue Reading

WWJG Do? What Will Justice Gorsuch Do, With “All Exposures Contribute” Testimony in Toxic Tort Cases?

Posted in Litigation Trends, Products Liability, Toxic Tort

On January 31, 2017, President Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. Although time will tell, this post assumes he will make it through the Senate confirmation process, and take his place at 1 First Street, Northeast. Currently, Judge Gorsuch sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit,… Continue Reading

Does Increased Regulation of E-Cigarettes Threaten to Make the Vaping Industry Go Up in Smoke?

Posted in California Courts, Complex Torts, Litigation Trends, Products Liability

Recently, the Food and Drug Administration has regulated electronic cigarettes, making it illegal to sell e-cigarettes to anyone under 18. Similarly, California recently enacted legislation requiring a minimum purchase age of 21 for e-cigarettes. Tobacco critic Stanton Glantz argued in favor of the minimum purchase age, stating that “There’s no question that e-cigarettes aren’t as… Continue Reading

Manufacturers Benefit from Georgia Supreme Court Ruling on Take-Home Exposure

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Litigation Trends, Products Liability

The Georgia Supreme Court has weighed-in on the issue of manufacturers’ liability for take-home exposure cases. In the opinion recently issued in CertainTeed Corporation v. Fletcher, the Court drew an unexpected distinction between a manufacturer’s duty to issue warnings and its responsibility to keep harmful products out of the stream of commerce. Justice Carol Hunstein,… Continue Reading

Recent Fifth Circuit Ruling a Relief to United States Government Equipment Suppliers

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Complex Torts, Litigation Trends, Products Liability

It is no secret that, in many instances, injured tort plaintiffs would prefer to file their cases in state court as opposed to federal court. One of the many reasons for this preference is that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure place express limits on the amount of discovery available to parties.  Further, the Federal Rules… Continue Reading

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

CA Supreme Court Offers Interpretation of Personal Jurisdiction Decision

Posted in California Courts, Uncategorized

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler A.G. v. Bauman, 571 U.S. __, 134 S.Ct. 746 (2014), has played a significant role this year in cases pending in Delaware and Rhode Island. Most recently, the California Supreme Court has weighed in, changing what we thought we knew about personal jurisdiction, at least in California…. Continue Reading

Another Smoking Lung Cancer Asbestos Claim Gets Burned in Baltimore

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Litigation Trends, Maryland Courts

Five plaintiffs in a smoking lung cancer case in a Baltimore City, Maryland case captioned James Harrell, et al v. ACandS, INC., et al, Consol. Case No. 24X16000053 saw their claims go up in smoke on November 15, 2016 when the Court granted certain Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Basis of Assumption of… Continue Reading