Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In a recent decision, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified an issue important to workers' compensation insurers and held that pre-petition unpaid workers' compensation premiums are not entitled to priority status under the Bankruptcy Code. <i>Howard Delivery Service, Inc., et. al. v. Zurich American Insurance Co.</i>, 126 S. Ct. 2105 (2006). This decision forecloses any disagreement among the Circuit Courts that unpaid workers' compensation premiums are entitled to priority status in a bankruptcy proceeding. In light of <i>Howard</i>, such claims are now considered merely general unsecured claims. Had the Supreme Court afforded priority status to such claims, they would have been paid prior to the claims of general unsecured creditors. Generally, priority expense claims receive a significant, if not 100% distribution, as opposed to general unsecured claims, which, in many circumstances, receive only pennies on the dollar. In a decision delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, joined by five other justices (Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr. and Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Stephen Breyer), the Supreme Court's ruling not only brings consistency to this issue, but also provides opportunities for workers' compensation insurers to avoid forfeiture of payment of their premiums by financially troubled insureds.
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
A federal judge's findings about suspect diagnoses in thousands of silicosis cases in multidistrict litigation in Corpus Christi, TX, did not convince a state judge in Mississippi to sanction a Houston firm representing some plaintiffs in those cases.
Because expert testimony is so important in product liability litigation, disclosure is essential. Failure to comply with the rules governing disclosure can be fatal. A Rule 26 report disclosing proposed opinion testimony must meet specific and substantial criteria. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(b). The report must contain, <i>inter alia</i>: 1) a complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis or reasons therefor, and 2) the data or other information considered by the witness in forming the opinions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B), <i>Tompkin v. Phillip Morris</i>, 362 F.3d 882, 895 (2004), <i>Brainard v. American Skandia Life Ins. Sopr.</i>, 2005 WL 3533545 (6th Cir. 2005).
Features
Part One of this article discussed the plight of same-sex couples arising from the debate over the legal status of same-sex relationships. New York has now decided that the state constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex. The state's highest court has left the resolution of the injustices suffered by same-sex couples to the state legislature. Hernandez v. Robles (See article infra). The first part of the article addressed, inter alia, the 400-page report by the NYSBA Special Committee to Study Issues Affecting Same-Sex Couples, the inequitable application of the equitable distribution law and parents' and children's rights upon relationship dissolution. The conclusion herein discusses de facto parents.
Features
Part One of this article defined the newly evolving role of the parenting coordinator and discussed various statutory authorities for the PC role; the role's purpose and scope; how PCs are appointed; what decision-making authority PCs have or do not have; the timing of PC appointments; and the court's jurisdiction to make such appointments. Part Two dealt with additional PC topics, including continuing jurisdiction and judicial review of PC decisions or recommendations. Part Three addresses PC proceedings; ex parte communications; confidentiality; referral for third-party services; access to non-parties, children and privileged information; submission and exception to PC recommendations or reports; and PC immunity.
Today's economy depends heavily on the enormous range of products that are sold daily to consumers. Indeed, consumer demand for both the necessities and conveniences of life ' everything from lawn mowers and ovens to trampolines and espresso makers ' drives many manufacturers constantly to develop new products to sell. In today's litigious society, however, virtually every product sold represents at least the potential for product liability exposure. Jury awards and settlements frequently make headlines ' everyday household appliances, such as coffee makers, fryers, and blenders, have yielded damage awards or settlements as high as $2.25 million. Injuries from lawn mowers have generated awards or settlements as high as $2.6 million. Even furniture has the potential to yield awards or settlements in excess of a million dollars. Moreover, product liability exposure has ruined certain industries, <i>eg</i>, asbestos, and small companies without adequate insurance protection could face bankruptcy from a single product recall.
Features
In July, New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, ruled that same-sex couples have no right to marry under the New York state constitution. The 4-2 decision, which upheld four Appellate Division decisions that had declined to extend the right to marry to same-sex couples, marks the end of the judicial battle in New York over same-sex marriage. Because the appellants raised no federal issues, they cannot appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The opinions of forensic evaluators in child custody cases carry the potential power to change lives by force of law. Too often those opinions are received in evidence without serious examination of whether they are based upon demonstrable knowledge as opposed to subjective beliefs and idiosyncratic value judgments. Intellectually empty proclamations, such as 'the opinion is helpful' or 'I'll take it for what it's worth' usher these potent utterance into evidence in all too many courtrooms. The notion that an opinion that is not demonstrably valid can be helpful and ought to be admitted 'for what it is worth' is as illusory as it is foreign to evidence doctrine.