Search

When the Pharmaceutical and Research Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) announced it was instituting a new policy on direct-to-consumer advertising, PhRMA President and CEO Billy Tauzin stated, "With these principles, we commit ourselves to improving the inherent educational value of advertisements. Patients need accurate and timely information and should be encouraged to discuss diseases and treatment options with their physicians. These principles will help us reach that goal."

Liability insurance policies typically require the insured to notify the insurance company "as soon as practicable" or "as soon as possible" of a suit or a potentially covered claim. Compliance with these "notice conditions" is often held to be a condition precedent to coverage under the policy, such that if the insured unreasonably delays notifying its carrier of a suit or claim, the insurer may be relieved of its duties under the policy. The purpose of these provisions is to protect the insurer by giving it adequate time to investigate the claim, control the litigation, posture the case for settlement, set reserves, and prevent fraud. <i>Sybron Transition Corp. v. Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford</i>, 107 F.3d 1250, 1257 (7th Cir. 1997). But there is a cautionary note for insurers because the duty to provide prompt notice is not limited to the insured. Under limited circumstances, an insurer may be estopped from relying upon a coverage defense, such as late notice or an applicable exclusion from coverage, if it unreasonably delays denying coverage under the policy because, just like the insurer, the insured can potentially suffer prejudice from untimely communications. <i>Incorporated Village of Pleasantville v. Calvert Ins. Co.</i>, 612 N.Y.S.2d 441 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994); <i>Central Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kammerling</i>, 571 N.E.2d 806 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991). This article discusses the elements of estoppel barring coverage defenses, application of the defense in special circumstances involving settlement of the underlying claim, and what an insurer should do if it is uncertain as to whether coverage actually exists under the policy.

Doctors in Wisconsin and in other states are not the only ones worried about the Wisconsin Supreme Court's recent decision invalidating caps on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases in that state. Patient advocates, insurers and other business group representatives are also very concerned that the strides they've made in reigning in malpractice insurance premiums are in jeopardy.

Recent rulings you need to know.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, people from all walks of life and from all corners of the world want to reach out to do what they can to help the victims of this unfathomable disaster. Schoolchildren are raising pennies to help those in need while relief organizations send supplies from all regions of the country. On the ground where this disaster struck in Louisiana and Mississippi, however, thousands of caring individuals have been providing emergency first aid and medical care to their neighbors in need. When licensed health care workers respond to the urgent needs of the hurricane's victims, what kinds of liability might they be opening themselves up to?

Up-to-date news.

After Merck &amp; Co.'s devastating loss in Texas earlier this month in the first Vioxx case to go to a jury, the nation's eyes now turn to Atlantic City, where New Jersey's first case was set for trial on Sept. 12.

All the latest you need to know.

One who is entitled to receive income, including interest or compensation for services, but assigns the income to another before it becomes due, will be taxed on it just as though he or she had actually received it and then paid it over to the assignee. This concept is known as the assignment of income doctrine.

<b>Part Two of a Two-Part Article.</b> The <i>McDowell</i> case discussed in the first part of this article presented the question of "whether it is so if an expert says it is so." <i>See Viterbo v. Dow Chem. Co.</i>, 826 F.2d 420, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). <i>Daubert</i> and its progeny answered in the negative and established that an expert may not present a bare causation conclusion to the jury when that expert has no scientific basis for that conclusion or for any of the predicate inferences leading up to it. The <i>McDowell</i> claim failed because a physician's personal clinical experience, sometimes called anecdotal experience, is simply not a proper scientific basis for causation opinion testimony.