Products-Completed Operations Clauses: S.T. Hudson Engineers, Inc. et al. v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Company
September 27, 2007
In a case of first impression, New Jersey's Appellate Division recently explored the relationship between three clauses commonly contained in policies issued to professionals, in this case a professional engineering firm: 1) the exclusion for professional services contained in a commercial general liability ('CGL') policy, 2) the affirmative grant of products-completed operations coverage in that same CGL policy, and 3) the corresponding exclusion of products-completed operations coverage in an architect/engineer's professional indemnity policy. <i>See S.T. Hudson Engineers, Inc. et al. v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Company,</i> 388 N.J. Super. 592, 909 A.2d 1156 (App. Div. 2006), <i>certif. denied,</i> 189 N.J. 647, 917 A.2d 787 (2007).
Current Trends in IPOs
September 26, 2007
In 2007, Mergermarket was commissioned by Nixon Peabody LLP to conduct 'IPO Executive Insights 2007,' a survey of senior corporate executives (CEOs and CFOs) of 100 companies that had undertaken an IPO in the past three years (the 'Survey'). The Survey was designed to provide insights into key IPO market trends and issues related to the process of going public in the current regulatory environment that emerged after the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ('SOX').
Riding the Fulcrum Seesaw
September 26, 2007
Troubled businesses also may have turned to the distressed debt market instead of filing for bankruptcy protection due to recent changes to the Bankruptcy Code, which made bankruptcy a more complicated, expensive and uncertain alternative. As a result, when the next wave of Chapter 11 filings comes, hedge funds and other distressed debt investors will act to protect their unique interests and strategies, which will bring new dynamics to bankruptcy cases.
Franchisor Price Fixing: What Does Leegin Really Mean for Franchising?
August 31, 2007
By now, everyone seriously involved in the practice of franchise law is aware of <i>Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.</i>, 2007 WL 1835892 (S. Ct. June 28, 2007). The Supreme Court in <i>Leegin</i> held that vertical resale price maintenance is no longer unlawful in and of itself. Although hailing the decision as overruling a nearly 100-year prohibition on minimum price fixing, the pundits writing in the wake of <i>Leegin</i> have nevertheless hedged their bets on just how revolutionary the decision is. Their constant mantra is this: <i>Leegin</i> does not open the door to unrestrained resale price maintenance, but rather changes the rules under which courts will evaluate sales agreements setting minimum prices. No longer will courts treat them as unlawful <i>per se</i>; they will now evaluate their legality under something called 'the rule of reason.' If a court (or jury) concludes that an agreement establishing a minimum price is an 'unreasonable restraint of trade,' then the supplier has violated the antitrust laws. If the threat of treble damages from such a finding isn't sobering enough, writers warn us that courts may interpret state 'baby Sherman Acts' as still making resale price maintenance unlawful <i>per se</i>, regardless of what the U.S. Supreme Court says.
Movers & Shakers
August 31, 2007
News about lawyers and law firms in the product liability field.
Case Notes
August 31, 2007
Highlights of the latest commercial leasing cases from around the country.
Home Depot Faces Multiple Suits: Allegations of Health Hazards from Grout Sealer
August 31, 2007
When Gwinnett County, GA, resident James Flynn bought a spray can of grout sealer from his neighborhood Home Depot in July 2005, he could not have imagined that his purchase would land him in the hospital and cost him the use of a lung. However, Flynn's attorney, Frank Ilardi, said that when his client bought Tile Perfect Stand 'N Seal Spray-On Grout Sealer, its manufacturer had been fielding complaints for more than a month about potentially devastating effects associated with its use.
Deference to the FDA's Preamble
August 31, 2007
A cursory review of the conflicting decisions being rendered across the country reveals that courts are fairly split over the issue of federal pre-emption of failure-to-warn strict liability claims in pharmaceutical litigation. The FDA directly addressed the issue in the Preamble to the Final Rule ('Preamble') published Jan. 24, 2006.
Bucking the Tort Reform Trend? Manufacturer of Non-Asbestos Product Has Duty to Warn About Asbestos Dangers
August 31, 2007
Product liability plaintiffs are facing ever-growing barriers to filing suit in state and federal courts. Tort reformers have won significant victories at the state level, including restrictions on asbestos claims and caps on punitive damages. At the federal level, the Class Action Fairness Act ('CAFA') has allowed for easier removal of state class actions to federal courts. In addition to the impact of CAFA, a number of states have enacted legislation that makes it more difficult to file class actions in their courts. Several states also have initiated 'venue reform,' which limits the ability of out-of-state plaintiffs to file lawsuits in those states.
Practice Tip: Expert Testimony Quantifying Hedonic Damages
August 31, 2007
Few subjects in the staid world of economics generate as much controversy as expert testimony quantifying hedonic damages: tort damages that attempt to compensate a plaintiff for the loss of enjoyment of life. Countless articles in forensics literature debate whether monetary value placed on a statistical life applies to a specific plaintiff. This controversy has spilled over into the courtroom. While most jurisdictions allow recovery of some form of hedonic damages, the trend, especially in the post-<i>Daubert</i> era, has been to exclude expert testimony that purports to calculate the amount of those damages. This article examines the trend against expert testimony quantifying hedonic damages and notes recent decisions that indicate the trend may be curbing, especially in jurisdictions that have refused to adopt <i>Daubert</i>.
