LJN Newsletters

  • Former Government Employees as Opposing Expert Witnesses

    It is increasingly common in product liability cases for a plaintiff to disclose as an expert a former employee of a government agency such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") or the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). These witnesses frequently advertise themselves as experts in "product/drug safety" and refer to their regulatory background as their primary qualification. Frequently, however, these witnesses' responsibilities as government employees had little, if anything, to do with the subjects about which they are now testifying. Nevertheless, these witnesses are dangerous if allowed to testify to a jury, because they lend the credibility of the U.S. government to the plaintiff's case.

    July 30, 2004James H. Rotondo

  • ADA Retaliation Claims

    The United States Supreme Court has declined to review a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that bars plaintiffs alleging retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) from seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Kramer v. Banc of Am. Securities LLC, U.S., No. 03-1451, cert. denied 6/21/04. Earlier this year, the Seventh Circuit was the first federal appellate court to conclude that the ADA does not provide plaintiffs the right to seek such damages in retaliation cases. Kramer v. Banc of Am. Securities LLC, 355 F.3d 961 (N.D. Ill. 2004).

    July 30, 2004Betsy L. Katten

  • Constructive Discharges Resulting from Sexual Harassment

    In one of its most important employment decisions on the subject of sexual harassment since its landmark decisions in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (524 U.S. 742, 141 L. Ed. 2d 633, 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998)) and Faragher v. Boca Raton (524 U.S. 775, 808, 141 L. Ed. 2d 662, 118 S. Ct. 2275 (1998)), the Supreme Court, in Pennsylvania State Police vs. Suders (124 S. Ct. 2342, 159 L. Ed. 2d 204, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4176 (2004)), addressed the issue of a constructive discharge resulting from sexual harassment.

    July 30, 2004Marc R. Engel

  • To (b)(2) or Not to (b)(2)?

    Is there a person alive who does not know that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has been sued in a gigantic class action? On June 21, U.S. District Judge Martin J. Jenkins of the Northern District of California certified the largest employment discrimination class action in American history. See Dukes v. Wal-mart Inc., No. C 01-02252 (N.D. Calif. 2004), 2004 U.S. Lexis 11365.

    July 30, 2004Linda S. Mullenix

  • Insurance Coverage for Silica Claims

    While continuing to fight the decades-old battle with asbestos, corporate policyholders increasingly are confronting another substance that plaintiffs allege can cause serious injury if inhaled: silica — a common mineral found in sand, granite and concrete, among other materials.

    July 30, 2004Roberta D. Anderson

  • Case Briefs

    Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.

    July 30, 2004ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |

  • Reasonableness in Bad Faith Cases: A Question for the Jury?

    As the law of insurer bad faith evolves, the question of whether policyholders are entitled to a jury trial of their claims, or parts of their claims, comes increasingly into focus. In cases where the policyholder alleges bad faith in the manner in which a claim is investigated or handled — so-called "procedural" bad faith — factual issues for the jury often abound. But when an insurer timely and clearly declines coverage following an adequate investigation, should the "reasonableness" of that declination be submitted to a jury? From both a practical and a policy perspective, the answer in most cases should be no.

    July 30, 2004Steve Vaccaro