Features

Aside from promulgating regulations, imposing rigorous standards on myriad product manufacturers, and conducting research and studies on all such products, the FDA also takes an active role in participating in an array of product liability litigations both on the state and federal levels. Often, the FDA's position and "expertise" on an issue carry great weight with the courts and consequently can affect the outcome of litigation. Thus, defense counsel involved in product liability matters in which the FDA historically has had an interest should keep abreast of the FDA's positions on the relevant issues.

Features

<b><i>Conducting Ex Parte Interviews with Plaintiff's Health Care Providers</i></b> The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is a complex commercial statutory scheme aimed at regulating the health care industry's use and storage of electronic health information. In drafting this legislation, Congress expressed concern that health care entities must assure their "customers," including patients, "that the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of electronic protected health information they collect, maintain, use, or transmit is protected." 68 Fed. Reg. 8334 (Feb. 20, 2003). HIPAA (Pub. L. No. 104-191) is codified in myriad sections of 18, 26, 29, and 42 of the United States Code. Using the Public Law Number cite and referring to the most recent edition of the United States Code Annotated Tables periodical will permit the reader to pinpoint these scattered United States Code sections.

Features

In the insurance arena, allocations of claims amounts are frequently the subject of litigation among policyholders and insurers. Courts seek to fashion allocation formulas based upon a number of factors including policy language, legal principles and equitable considerations. In the reinsurance context, allocation questions are generally resolved in arbitration. A number of courts, however, have recently addressed the allocation of claims settlements in the reinsurance context. The issue in reinsurance is whether the reinsurer is bound by the cedents' allocation of a loss or settlement amount to the cedents' policies at issue in the underlying claim. Reinsurers are generally bound to "follow-the-fortunes" or "follow-the-settlements" of a cedent provided the cedent has acted reasonably and in good faith and in accordance with the terms of the reinsurance contracts. <i>Aetna Cas. &amp; Sur. Co. v. Home Ins. Co.,</i> 882 F. Supp. 1328, 1346 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). This article surveys recent case law that has addressed the question of whether the "follow-the-settlements" or "follow-the-fortunes" doctrine applies to allocation of claims payments or settlements to reinsured policies.

Features

Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.

Brokers long have had certain duties toward policyholders, including the duty to use reasonable skill and care in procuring insurance. Procuring appropriate coverage can be a daunting task for applicants unfamiliar with the intricacies of insurance. The myriad types of policies available and the differing coverages they contain present numerous pitfalls for the unwary. Many companies, even those with risk managers, rely upon brokers to select policy types and carriers, and to notify carriers of losses. Given policyholders' reliance on brokers, there is a standard of care brokers must meet.

Features

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

If you require information about toxic chemicals, visit the National Toxicology Program (NTP) at <i>http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov.</i> The NTP was established in 1978 by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to coordinate toxicological testing programs within the department; strengthen the science base in toxicology; develop and validate improved testing methods; and provide information about potentially toxic chemicals to health regulatory and research agencies, the scientific and medical communities, and the public.

Features

For the fifth time in 12 years, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case involving the imposition of punitive damages and, once again, the Court articulated criteria and principles against which lower courts and litigants can measure the type of conduct that should support an award of punitive damages. <i>State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. v. Campbell,</i> 123 S.Ct. 1513 (April 7, 2003).