Asbestos Injuries and the 'Completed Operations' Provision
March 29, 2007
In asbestos insurance coverage litigation, the extent of an insurer's liability to its insured often turns on whether the court determines that the underlying asbestos injury took place while the insured was conducting operations, such as asbestos installation or tear out, or after such operations were completed. This distinction is important to the insurer because under many general liability policies injuries taking place during operations may be held as not subject to aggregate limits, whereas injuries taking place after completion typically are held subject to aggregate limits.
Determining the Financial Condition of an Insurance Carrier
March 29, 2007
Punitive damages long have been awarded 'to punish wrongdoers and thereby deter the commission of wrongful acts ... ' <i>Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exch.</i>, 21 Cal. 3d 910, 928 n.13, 148 Cal. Rptr. 389, 399 n.13 (1978). In order to accurately determine how large a punitive damage award should be, the financial condition of a defendant must be evaluated. If a punitive damage award is not large enough, then it is not likely to have any deterrent effect. Instead, because it simply would be a cost of doing business, it actually may serve as an incentive to further wrongful conduct. Therefore, in order to accurately determine how much of a punitive damage award is enough, but not too much, the financial condition of an insurance carrier needs to be evaluated. <i>Id.</i> at 928 (the wealth of defendant must be considered or else 'the function of deterrence ... will not be served if the wealth of the defendant allows him to absorb the award with little or no discomfort'); <i>Adams v. Murakami</i>, 54 Cal. 3d 105, 111-12, 284 Cal. Rptr. 318, 321 (1991) ('The most important question is whether the amount of the punitive damages award will have deterrent effect — without being excessive ... This balance cannot be made absent evidence of the defendant's financial condition.').
Case Notes
March 29, 2007
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
Lawyers' Detective Work Pays Off
March 29, 2007
When they got the case, Miami attorneys Thomas and Elizabeth Culmo had virtually no information about the allegedly defective motor scooter that had caused their client a serious spinal injury.
Tendering Claims to Manufacturers, Suppliers
March 29, 2007
The birth of modern-day product liability law was arguably delivered in 1963 by the California Supreme Court in <i>Greenman v. Yuba Power Products,</i> 59 Cal. 2d 57 (1963). Today, product liability law is commonly understood to mean that all participants in the chain of distribution of a defective product are strictly liable for injuries caused by that product. Strict liability generally means that any seller in the distribution chain is liable if the product is defective, even if the seller was not responsible for making that product defective. There are a variety of different sellers in today's global economy that partially or completely assemble or manufacture their products and can be held responsible for defects even if not sued in the original action. Sellers in the distribution chain are vast and include manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers. Those lower in the distribution chain (<i>i.e.,</i> those closer to the ultimate purchaser of the product) often seek defense and indemnity from upstream participants.
Practice Tip: Sixth Circuit Rules on Privilege in Two Cases
March 29, 2007
The Sixth Circuit has recently handed down two opinions on attorney-client privilege and attorney work product privilege. These opinions are of special interest to product liability practitioners, experts who testify in product liability matters, and anyone else involved in matters where discovery of documents might be crucial.
