Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Although a product may be reasonably safe when it is sold, a manufacturer that later learns of risks revealed by user operation may be held responsible for failure to issue post-sale warnings. The justification for a post-sale duty to warn arises from a manufacturer's unique and superior position to follow the use and adaptation of its products by consumers. The manufacturer is best placed to learn about post-sale defects or dangers discovered in the use of its products as compared with purchasers and users.
Features
Over the course of the last 2 years, Congress has tried to find a legislative solution to two very different alleged toxic torts. In November 2002, a rider was attached to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that would have effectively brought one of the most recent toxic tort litigations ' the thimerosal litigation ' to an abrupt end. Throughout the spring and summer of 2003, Congress tried to establish a $115 billion national trust fund for perhaps the largest and oldest and possibly most abused toxic tort litigation ' the asbestos litigation. Neither of these attempts, for very different reasons, was successful ' the thimerosal rider was repealed in early 2003 and in November 2003, the Senate decided not to vote on the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2003. What follows is an overview of those legislative initiatives.
An unusual twist in the typical product liability case can occur when a plaintiff asserts a post-sale warning claim. (In this article, "product" does not refer to consumer products that are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.) Because a post-sale warning claim is not frequently encountered, such a claim can cause confusion, especially with respect to the relation between the post-sale warning claim and the other claims that a plaintiff is asserting.
Last month's edition featured a new book excerpt on resolving balance sheet issues in law firm mergers. This recent news report on Pennie & Edmonds underscores the potentially extreme challenges of harmonizing disparate accounting systems.
While A&FP regularly seeks to explore new and advanced profitability techniques, the wide experience of our authors regularly confirms the vital need to keep an eye on basics. It's been some time since we revisited these particular perennials in the profitability garden. Our Editorial Board member Bill Brennan's review clarifies their importance and provides some fresh insights
Features
Last month's medley of views on law firm ranking metrics, while diverse, by no means exhausted what <i>A&FP</i> Board members and other contributors have to say about this important subject. The following two mini articles continue to address ranking-related problems, but will also help us broaden the scope of our discussion.
Features
With more U.S. law firms serving ' or becoming ' global enterprises, many readers will need to gain new fluency in dealing with foreign currencies and exchange-rate issues. Before you immerse yourself in technical details, here's a preview of some practical issues you may encounter and some business advantages you might seek.
When an insured entity becomes a debtor in bankruptcy, the interests of liability insurers collide with fundamental principles of the Bankruptcy Code. Most liability insurance policies require the policyholder to pay a deductible or self-insured retention ("SIR") before the insurer is obliged to pay anything. And many insurance policies require the policyholder to pay the entire claim first and to seek reimbursement from the insurer afterward. Almost by definition, however, insolvent policyholders are unable to make these upfront payments. Indeed, in many cases, the policyholder's inability to do so in the face of a deluge of litigation was the principal cause of the insolvency in the first place.
Features
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
During recent years, insureds have faced a wide range of claims with potential liability exceeding the limits of their primary insurance policies. In such a setting, excess insurers typically argue that their duties are not triggered unless and until the primary policy has paid its limits. Such arguments should not be readily accepted. Excess insurers owe duties even before primary policies have exhausted. And, when a primary insurer settles with its insured, excess insurers may be obligated to pay under their policies even if the settlement was for less than the primary policy's limits.