Asbestos Injuries and the 'Completed Operations' Provision
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.
Case Notes
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
Lawyers' Detective Work Pays Off
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
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
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.
Exploring the Status of the Obvious Danger Doctrine in Failure-to-Warn Cases
Traditional tort law principles provide that product manufacturers and sellers have a duty to warn of hidden risks that pose a danger to product users. As a corollary, courts generally hold that manufacturers and sellers have no duty to warn consumers of obvious dangers inherent in the product. Consequently, most judges have left to the jury the question of whether the danger of injury from a product is obvious. Against this backdrop, a recent decision has cast doubt on the accepted notion that obviousness is necessarily a question for the jury. Specifically, the Supreme Court of Michigan held in <i>Greene v. A.P. Products, Ltd.</i>, 717 N.W.2d 855, <i>reh'g denied</i>, 720 N.W.2d 748 (Mich. 2006) that, as a matter of law, hair oil posed an open and obvious danger to consumers that negated any duty to warn that the product could kill if ingested or inhaled.
Tips for Negotiating Mobile-Game Development Agreements
The mobile-game industry can be lucrative. Mobile games ' which can be downloaded to cell phones and other mobile devices ' can be cheaper and easier to develop than games created for platforms like PCs or game consoles, where users expect higher production values. What also makes mobile games attractive to developers and entrepreneurs is the potential market of consumers who already carry and use cell phones ' estimated at 207.9 million nationwide and 2 billion worldwide. Mobile games present huge brand opportunities as well: Celebrities such as hotel heiress Paris Hilton, rapper 50 Cent, skateboarder Tony Hawk and poker champion Phil Hellmuth have each licensed their names and images to mobile games. Tom Cruise, notoriously shy of associating his name with videogames, lent his name exclusively to a Mission Impossible III mobile-phone game.
Verdicts
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
