An appellate court recently ruled that an automobile dealership that could not file suit to enjoin an additional dealership under the statute's specific additional "add-point" statute could nevertheless file an administrative proceeding based on a "generic" statute that prohibits conduct by a manufacturer that is "capricious, in bad faith, or unconscionable."
The 2008 Kansas Legislature passed a statute that declares void as against Kansas public policy long-standing contract risk-allocation provisions in many commercial contracts ' including franchise and dealership contracts. The story begins in 2004, when the legislature enacted a prohibition against liability indemnity provisions in construction contracts.
Commentary on the latest cases.
Everything contained in this issue, in an easy-to-read format.
Many see benzene-related cases as the next big thing in toxic tort litigation.
In a multi-insurer coverage case, it is common for the insured to settle with one or more insurers before trial. When that happens in a case in which the court employs the "all sums" scope-of-coverage approach, can the non-settling insurers bring claims of their own against the settled carriers in an effort to reallocate some of their liability to their former co-defendants? If not, is there another mechanism to account for those settlements?
An in-depth look at recent national rulings.
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
