Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.

Many successful trial specialists consider "other similar incidents" evidence ("OSI") to be among the most powerful weapons intended to persuade juries that the product in question is truly defective. If they are used, however, two things are necessary: evidence to support the incidents, and careful scrutiny, not only for the familiar standards of so-called "substantial similarity," but also for true relevance, probativeness and potential for prejudice.

In the emerging issue of third-party liability, recent rulings by the high courts of New York state and Georgia, and a case pending before the New Jersey Supreme Court, may provide some insight as to the direction other state supreme courts may follow.

Contractual indemnification arises in products liability litigation in many contexts other than insurance contracts. Agreements between companies and agreements between product manufacturers and physicians and pharmacies are among the most commonly encountered indemnifications in drug and device product liability litigation. Each situation raises practical concerns for counsel representing a pharmaceutical or device manufacturer. How the indemnification provisions are drafted can be important to the client's bottom line and ability to manage litigation. This article discusses some of the practical and litigation strategy considerations that can arise when contemplating entering an agreement for indemnification.

Features

Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.

In assessing whether a particular insurance policy is excess or primary, courts consider a number of factors including: the premium paid for the policy (<i>ie</i>, the amount of consideration); the specific language of the policy (<i>ie</i>, the presence of an "other insurance" clause); the form of the policy (<i>ie</i>, whether the policy specifically identifies itself as "excess"); and whether the policy specifically identifies the primary policies. These factors determine whether the policy will be deemed "true excess," "excess by coincidence," or primary. This determination is necessarily fact intensive and involves not only an examination of the subject policy but also an examination of any other policy to which the subject policy is purportedly excess and the interaction of such policies.

Features

Experienced insurance coverage lawyers know that choice of forum frequently affects choice of law, and choice of law is frequently outcome determinative. Coverage disputes, therefore, often result in a rush to the courthouse by both policyholders and insurers as they select the forum. One way insurers initiate litigation is to file a declaratory judgment action, usually in federal court.

On Jan. 10, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its first decision in over a decade interpreting the federal price discrimination statute, known as the Robinson-Patman Act (the "RPA"). In a 7-2 decision, the Court in <i>Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc.</i> (04-905), held that a heavy-duty truck manufacturer's unequal price concessions to its dealers bidding for special order jobs do not violate the RPA unless they discriminate between dealers competing for the same retail customer.