Supreme Court Handles Device Makers a Victory
March 28, 2008
The U.S. Supreme Court in February tackled an issue that has come up frequently in lawsuits brought by plaintiffs claiming they've been injured by medical devices: Do the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 preempt state law-based claims against device manufacturers? The Court had partially answered the question in <i>Lohr v. Medtronic</i>, but the fact situation in that case did not necessarily make its decision applicable to other cases against medical devices manufacturers.
Lack of Informed Consent vs. Battery
March 28, 2008
Last month, we discussed the fact that a recent decision by the California Court of Appeal explores the relationship between the doctrine of informed consent and the intentional tort of battery. The case was <i>Saxena v Goffney</i>. This is the conclusion of that discussion.
The FTCA and the Payment of Tort Damages
March 28, 2008
Federal government attorneys recently unsuccessfully attempted to convince a Federal District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to rewrite the terms of the Federal Tort Claims Act ('FTCA') to allow the creation of a reversionary trust rather than give a lump-sum award to pay for a medical malpractice plaintiff's future medical expenses.
Litigation
March 28, 2008
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Case Briefs
March 27, 2008
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
New Approach to Policy Interpretation
March 27, 2008
Three decisions ' <i>Fortis Benefits v. Cantu,</i>; <i>Mid-Continent Insurance Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.,</i>; and <i>Excess Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Frank's Crew & Rental Tools, Inc.</i> ' appear to reflect the Texas Supreme Court's view that courts applying Texas law should not read more into policies than what is expressly included. And, if there is an agreement apart from the insurance contract, the Texas Supreme Court will look for it to be in writing.
A Look at a Key Illinois Decision
March 27, 2008
An Illinois appellate court recently held that a subcontractor's insurer wrongfully rejected a general contractor's tender of defense for a suit filed by the subcontractor's employee. <i>State Automobile Mut. Ins. Co. v. Habitat Constr. Co.</i>
All About Captives
March 27, 2008
A captive is a privately held insurance company, and it can be a subsidiary of the insured business. It issues policies, collects premiums and pays claims, just like a commercial insurer; however, it does not offer insurance to the public. Developing and initiating a captive program may not be suitable for all companies, but by employing the tactics outlined in this article, you can make the decision that best suits your company's needs.
