Litigation

Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.

The Third Circuit's Treesdale decision last year understandably drew considerable attention in coverage circles: It was apparently the first reported appellate decision holding that a years-long course of manufacturing asbestos products, resulting in numerous bodily injury claims, constituted a single occurrence. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Treesdale, Inc., 418 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2005). The court's single-occurrence ruling was significant because it meant, in combination with other policy provisions, that the insurer was obligated to pay only a single per-occurrence limit under 10 consecutive policies in respect of its policyholder's entire asbestos liability. Treesdale has potentially broad application in a variety of long-tail liability contexts where per-occurrence limits may be the most important or even sole effective limit of liability. Add the fact that Treesdale was decided as a matter of law, and Treesdale qualifies as a landmark decision in the notoriously results-driven world of number-of-occurrences litigation.

Most insurance coverage litigation starts with a fundamental dispute over what an insurance policy means. Unfortunately, while California appellate courts have addressed the subject for decades, and while the California Supreme Court attempted to restate the basic principles, there still is considerable debate among litigants and courts as to how insurance policies are to be interpreted. Insurance carriers often contend that California is not as 'pro-insured' as it once was regarded. They often argue that insurance policies should be interpreted simply based on policy language, without reference to any external information, and that if the insured is 'sophisticated,' any ambiguity should be resolved against coverage. However, neither of these arguments is in accord with California law.

If a doctor's mistakes can be broadcast over the Internet for all the world to see, will he or she be more or less likely to settle a claim? What about plaintiffs? What are the implications for them should their suits against doctors and hospitals some day become public knowledge?
Government entities, private groups and even disgruntled private citizens are starting to use the Internet to broadcast their displeasure with what they see as 'dangerous doctors' or 'money-grubbing plaintiffs,' spreading the reach of the Web beyond the boundaries of the litigation itself by naming names of those who sue or are sued for medical malpractice.

Copyright Renewal/'Posthumous Work'
Radio Broadcasting/Sponsored Airplay
Royalty Waiver/Copyright Not Transferred

A look at the Duty to Inquire.

Analysis of key rulings.

In-depth analysis of recent rulings.