Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Although the marital exception to rape and forcible sodomy remained on the legislative books, the New York Court of Appeals in People v. Liberta, 64 NY2d 152 (1984), held that the exception ' which had previously shielded men from criminal liability for raping their wives ' was unconstitutional. It was a hard-won victory at the time for victims of such abuse and the feminist advocates behind them, but the extent of the protection the decision offered was limited; it applied only to rape and not to other sexual contacts that would be treated as crimes if perpetrated by anyone other than the victim's husband.
Features
A liability insurer's promise to defend its insured is at the core of the protection purchased by policyholders and, in most states, the insurer will be required to defend any suit alleging facts that possibly could result in a judgment against the insured that would be covered by the policy's duty to indemnify. A duty to defend will be found where the undisputed facts surrounding a claim — typically the language of the policy and the allegations of the complaint — permit proof of a claim potentially covered by the duty to indemnify. The complaint-allegations test, or what some jurisdictions term the eight-corners rule, results in the duty to defend being easily found by courts, commensurate with the broad contract language, and the policy's intention to afford the insured 'litigation insurance' protecting against the risk and burden of litigation.
Features
Reversing established precedent, a Fourth Department panel has ruled that when a parent is deemed unable to care for a child due to the parent's mental illness or retardation, the Family Court may determine whether 'some form of posttermination contact' is nonetheless in the child's best interests.
Features
Pure self-interest seemingly motivates parties in the adversarial system; but insurance presents a twist on that common understanding when it comes to litigation over coverage. That is because courts have held that a coverage action does not terminate certain obligations existing between an insured and its insurer ' even with respect to the particular claim at issue in the coverage dispute. With increasing frequency, aggressive attorneys representing policyholders argue that, despite traditional common law or statutory litigation and settlement privileges and protections, an insurer's conduct during a coverage lawsuit should be scrutinized with the aim of identifying evidence of 'bad faith' that can be used against the insurer.
Features
In litigation involving computers and information systems, some technical knowledge can deliver real power. With knowledge of how data sets relate to one another, a lawyer can find caches of relevant data.
Features
In this month's article, Michael LoGiudice examines instances of financial experts being challenged and excluded from cases ' and how to avoid exclusion. We reprint the first two sections of February's article for background and continuity.
Features
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
Features
Recent rulings that may affect your business.
Features
Medical monitoring is often pursued as a claim in class actions against corporate defendants based on exposures to environmental pollutants or products that allegedly have the potential to cause future health problems. Because medical monitoring is an exception to the general requirement that the plaintiff must have a present injury in order to pursue a claim, many jurisdictions have adopted strict elements that a plaintiff must satisfy in order to succeed on a medical monitoring claim. These elements often require the court to consider issues specific to individual plaintiffs, particularly aspects of each plaintiff's medical history that have an impact on the need for or the extent of the proposed medical monitoring. As a result of these individual medical issues, many courts in recent years have refused to certify medical monitoring class actions. <i>See, e.g., Ball v. Union Carbide Corp.</i>, 385 F.3d 713, 727-28 (6th Cir. 2004); <i>Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc.</i>, 253 F. 3d 1180, 1195-96, <i>amended,</i> 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001); <i>Barnes v. Am. Tobacco Co.</i>, 161 F.3d 127, 143 (3d Cir. 1998); <i>Boughton v. Cotter Corp.</i>, 65 F.3d 823, 827 (10th Cir. 1995).
