Cameo Clips
July 31, 2007
Copyright Infringement/Claim Dismissal; Decryption-Software Sales/Illegality Defense.
Case Management and Analysis
July 30, 2007
In the last few decades, 'going to trial' has lost its luster. Corporate counsel and business leaders have grown wary of the risk, expense and diversion of resources associated with trials. As plaintiff lawyers availed themselves of new theories of liability and liberal discovery, courts have grown congested and the road to verdict has grown longer. Trials have become synonymous within the business community with aberrant verdicts and wasteful expenditures of time and money.
Compliance Lessons from the Chiquita Case
July 30, 2007
In March of this year, Chiquita Brands agreed to pay a $25 million criminal fine for payments it made to a paramilitary group in Colombia. The payments were made by the Colombian subsidiary of Chiquita in order to protect the company's employees from threatened violence. Unfavorable press coverage emphasized payments by Chiquita to a 'terrorist group' and downplayed the threats made to Chiquita, which prompted it to make the payments in the first place.
Internet Service Provider Liability
July 30, 2007
The liability of an Internet service provider is one of the topics that has been vigorously disputed and discussed in Germany. And given the lack of borders in cyberspace, the outcome could impact e-commerce vendors in the United States and elsewhere.
Federal Judge Gives Clues in YouTube Infringement Case
July 30, 2007
A cross-coastal ruling in the little-known predecessor of the epic suit filed in March by Viacom International, Inc. against YouTube, Inc. and its new parent, Google, Inc., elucidates key issues arising under the Digital Milleneum Copyright Act that the a New York federal district judge will likely focus on in the much anticipated and ballyhooed litigation.
Case Briefs
June 29, 2007
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
Making Sense of Contra Proferentum
June 29, 2007
One traditional rule of contract interpretation is to construe contact terms in appropriate circumstances against the drafter, a concept often referred to as <i>contra proferentum</i>. This doctrine sometimes fits uncomfortably with two other views expressed by American courts. On one hand, many decisions say that insurance contracts are interpreted just like any other commercial contract. <i>See, e.g., Sims v. Mulhearn Funeral Home, Inc.</i>, ___ So.2d ___, (La. 2007); <i>Bear River Ins. Co. v. Williams</i>, 153 P.2d 798, 801 (Utah Ct. App. 2006). On the other hand, some decisions say without qualification that insurance contracts should be construed strictly against the insurer. <i>See, e.g., Carter v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co.</i>, ___ A.2d ___ (N.H. 2007); <i>Cinergy Corp. v. Associated Elec. & Gas Ins. Servs., Ltd.</i>, 865 N.E.2d 571, 574 (Ind. 2007). And sometimes a single opinion tries to express both at the same time: 'It is well settled that a <i>contract of insurance is no different from any other contract</i> and must be construed in a fair and reasonable manner, having regard to the risk and subject matter of the policy, and that special rules such as liberal construction in favor of the insured and against the insurer who drew the contract apply.' <i>In re New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.</i>, 833 N.Y.S.2d 182, 183 (App. Div. 2007) (emphasis added).
Class Certification In Property Insurance Disputes
June 29, 2007
The 2005 hurricane season, including the devastation wreaked by Hurricane Katrina, caused estimated losses of $75 billion. The insured property damage from the five major hurricanes in 2005 reached $52.7 billion. Hurricane Katrina alone caused more property loss than had occurred in the entire prior year, posting $27.3 billion. <i>See http://insurancenews net.com/article.asp?a=top_news&id=73930</i>. In light of these unprecedented losses, a record number of lawsuits have been filed stemming from damage caused by the 2005 storms. Predictably, an equally high number of class action suits have been filed, purportedly on behalf of those affected by the storms. Despite this flurry of class action suits, the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and its state counterparts clearly limit the use of class action suits to very specific, enumerated circumstances that simply do not include first-party insurance disputes, widespread property damage claims, or claims for bad faith and/or unfair trade practices in the adjustment of insurance claims, even where the damage was due to a common weather event.
