Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
A welcome to the Special Issue on Internet jurisdiction from the Managing Editor.
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
Features
California has a major influence on many business trends in the United States, and franchising law is no exception. Two recent court decisions in the state could have a significant effect on how franchises classify their employees for overtime purposes. Additionally, a citizen referendum that is on the November ballot could change how franchises (and all private businesses) are exposed to lawsuits. In this Q&A, Matthew Righetti, a partner in Righetti Wynne, based in San Francisco, talks about the potential impact of these developments in the context of the general business environment in the state. Righetti represented the plaintiffs in <i>Sav-On Drugstores v. Superior Court,</i> which is discussed below.
Features
Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
It was a dark and stormy Seattle day 7 years ago. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was in town for its workshop on the proposed revisions to the Franchise Rule (the NPR) on Nov. 6-7, 1997, to discuss whether it should allow franchisors to disclose electronically. Many people testified positively, including yours truly, and the discussion quickly turned to how to do so: floppy disks (but there were so many formats incompatible with the PCs and printers of the day), or the Internet (but there were so few prospects that had access). How much has changed!
It is becoming almost impossible to stay on top of all the significant developments affecting mass torts, class actions and environmental injury cases. Every week the combination of multiple court decisions, settlements, verdicts and government action affect the complexion of this constantly changing practice. The following summary, synthesized from multiple sources that include published court decisions, newspapers, government publications, journals and reports from lawyers across the country, highlights some of the most important events affecting mass torts during the last 6 months.
One year ago, newspaper headlines in publications such as <i>The Wall Street Journal</i> and <i>The New York Times</i> sounded the alarm that litigation involving injury or disease attributed to silica could be the "Next Asbestos." (Jonathan D. Glater, <i>Suits on Silica Being Compared to Asbestos Cases,</i> N.Y. Times, Sept. 6, 2003 at C1; Susan Warren, <i>Silicosis Suits Rise Like Dust,</i> Wall St. J., Sept. 4, 2003.) Since then, many legal and insurance industry commentators have tracked the growing number of silica claims. At the same time, the business and investment communities have taken a closer look to determine whether silica liabilities will present financial risk profiles similar to that experienced in the asbestos mass tort arena.
Forecasting mass tort claims is often based on sophisticated models applied to large, complicated databases. These models can account for such causal factors as the size of the exposed population, the dose-response rates between defendant's product and disease, and actuarial mortality rates of the exposed population. Too often, though, there is one variable that is simply extrapolated into the future at historical levels with no attempt to understand its causal influences — the filing rate (also called the propensity to sue).
Features
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
Features
Frequently, insureds fail to provide timely notice and tender of defense to their general liability insurers. This can occur for a variety of reasons. First, an insured may not know that a policy covers the claims in the suit against it or, in the case of a company covered by multiple policies over numerous years, that a policy even exists. Second, an insured may knowingly choose to forego notice on the belief that the claim is frivolous, can be easily defended, or that notice will result in higher renewal premiums. Third, an insured that is named as an additional insured under an employer's or subcontractor's policy or is covered by policies issued by multiple insurers may deliberately choose to have only certain insurers represent its interests. When an insured later learns of the existence of a policy, finds the claims cannot be easily defeated, or discovers that it may be held liable, it often turns to its insurers after incurring substantial pre-tender defense costs. Regardless of the reasons for delayed notice, the repercussions for both the insured and the insurer can be significant. The issue is compounded because courts are split as to how pre-tender costs are treated, providing a spectrum of results.
