Litigation

Many property insurance policies contain or incorporate one-year statute of limitations provisions. Such provisions typically provide that 'a claim or suit brought pursuant to the policy must be brought within 12 months of the date on which the direct physical loss or damage occurred.' These contractual limitations provisions may adversely impact the ability of a policyholder to obtain a recovery for a loss. Depending on the type of loss suffered, 12 months may be an insufficient period of time to investigate the loss and to resolve any coverage issues that might arise. In the case of a sizeable loss, it is not unusual for the insurer's appraisers and/or experts to take many months to investigate and/or to make a coverage determination. As such, unless a policyholder is vigilant about resolving the claim within 12 months or tolling the limitations period, the policyholder may face an argument that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations.

In the fall of 2006, the Second Circuit ruled on appeals from the jury trials in two huge insurance cases: SR International Business Insurance Co., Ltd. v. World Trade Center Properties, LLC, 467 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2006) ('Swiss Re'), and Olin Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 468 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2006). Both cases went to a jury verdict in 2005 against fairly overwhelming odds. Commentators have widely observed that jury trials are a disappearing breed. In 2002, only 1.8% of civil cases in federal courts and only 0.6% of civil cases in state courts went to jury trial. See Marc Galanter, The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal and State Courts, J. Empirical Legal Stud. 1 (3), 459-570 (2004); Brian J. Ostrom, et al., Examining Trial Trends in State Courts: 1976'2002, J. Empirical Legal Stud. 1 (3), 755-782 (2004). Moreover, both cases define high stakes, mega-insurance litigation: complex fact patterns, major corporate policyholders and insurers, billions of dollars in insurance coverage, and disputes closely watched by the press and public. Given this context, it is fairly extraordinary that the parties in Swiss Re and Olin let a jury of 'peers' determine the outcome of their disputes. The trial proceedings and appellate review in these cases are worthy of study for insurance litigators hoping or planning for a jury trial of their own.

The latest happenings in this important area.

'We hold that petitioner was not required, insofar as Article III is concerned, to break or terminate its 1997 license agreement before seeking a declaratory judgment in federal court that the underlying patent is invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed.'With this language, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its 8-1 landmark decision in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., reversing the holding of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ('Federal Circuit'). This decision has potentially wide-ranging ramifications for patent licensing.

The U.S. Supreme Court has recently shown an interest in intellectual property in general and patents in particular. Most prominent among the recent cases is KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., which presents perhaps the most difficult question in substantive patent law: When is the subject of a patent application a true 'invention' ' that is, something that promotes the progress of a useful art sufficient to warrant giving the applicant exclusive rights to the technology claimed for the next 20 years. Conversely, when is the invention 'obvious' ' merely taking a step that anyone of ordinary skill would take, confronted with the same problem and possessing all the knowledge already known to the field?

Putative father could obtain relief under state statute that granted a substantive, not procedural, right to address potential injustice. The State Ex rel. Loyd, v. Lovelady, 108 Ohio St.3d 86 (Ohio 2006).

We can think of no form of information that cannot be misused ' either deliberately by the manipulative, or inadvertently by the inept. Survey data are no exception. As psychologists, it is with some reluctance that we offer commentary on the relative merits of different standards for the admissibility of expert testimony, but our experiences in different states have heightened our awareness of how different standards affect the admissibility of testimony offered by psychologists in child custody litigation.

A major debate is under way as to the future of the 'grave risk of harm defense' in Hague Convention international child abduction cases. The move is spearheaded by those who believe that the Hague Convention discriminates against expatriate mothers who are victims of domestic violence and who return to their countries of origin with their children.