'Claim Splitting' in Class Actions: Should Defense Counsel Care?
July 30, 2004
Imagine that you represent a manufacturer who is being sued in a putative class action alleging that one of your client's products is defective. Although some consumers who used the product were injured as a result of the defect, the class action complaint does not make any claims for personal injury. Instead, the complaint asserts claims for economic damages only (<i>eg</i>, refunds of the purchase price of the product). Conventional wisdom would say that you should be thankful. Economic damages usually pale in comparison to personal injury damages, so if putative class counsel has chosen to forego a potentially larger verdict, so be it. Unconventional wisdom, on the other hand, would recognize that the class plaintiffs are "splitting" their claims, and claim splitting presents a number of unique issues for defense counsel.
Practice Tip: A Synopsis of Trademark Licensor Liability
July 30, 2004
A case in strict products liability is available in all states against the manufacturer of a defective product. A "manufacturer" is often defined as one who designs, produces, sells or otherwise distributes the product. Suppose, however, a company's logo is on a product that has been manufactured by someone else. Is the non-manufacturer responsible to a plaintiff and if so, under what theory? The answer depends upon the state in which you sue. Some jurisdictions hold a non-manufacturer liable as an "apparent manufacturer" if it has merely licensed its trademark. Other states require that the licensor have a "significant role" in the chain of distribution, and some states are hybrid, <i>eg</i>, they permit liability against trademark licensors but require more than just licensing the trademark. The following examples illustrate the way some states analyze this liability.
Constructive Discharges Resulting from Sexual Harassment
July 30, 2004
In one of its most important employment decisions on the subject of sexual harassment since its landmark decisions in <i>Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth</i> (524 U.S. 742, 141 L. Ed. 2d 633, 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998)) and <i>Faragher v. Boca Raton</i> (524 U.S. 775, 808, 141 L. Ed. 2d 662, 118 S. Ct. 2275 (1998)), the Supreme Court, in <i>Pennsylvania State Police vs. Suders</i> (124 S. Ct. 2342, 159 L. Ed. 2d 204, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4176 (2004)), addressed the issue of a constructive discharge resulting from sexual harassment.
To (b)(2) or Not to (b)(2)?
July 30, 2004
Is there a person alive who does not know that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has been sued in a gigantic class action? On June 21, U.S. District Judge Martin J. Jenkins of the Northern District of California certified the largest employment discrimination class action in American history. <i>See Dukes v. Wal-mart Inc.</i>, No. C 01-02252 (N.D. Calif. 2004), 2004 U.S. Lexis 11365.
ADA Retaliation Claims
July 30, 2004
The United States Supreme Court has declined to review a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that bars plaintiffs alleging retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) from seeking compensatory and punitive damages. <i>Kramer v. Banc of Am. Securities LLC</i>, U.S., No. 03-1451, cert. denied 6/21/04. Earlier this year, the Seventh Circuit was the first federal appellate court to conclude that the ADA does not provide plaintiffs the right to seek such damages in retaliation cases. <i>Kramer v. Banc of Am. Securities LLC</i>, 355 F.3d 961 (N.D. Ill. 2004).
Reasonableness in Bad Faith Cases: A Question for the Jury?
July 30, 2004
As the law of insurer bad faith evolves, the question of whether policyholders are entitled to a jury trial of their claims, or parts of their claims, comes increasingly into focus. In cases where the policyholder alleges bad faith in the manner in which a claim is investigated or handled — so-called "procedural" bad faith — factual issues for the jury often abound. But when an insurer timely and clearly declines coverage following an adequate investigation, should the "reasonableness" of that declination be submitted to a jury? From both a practical and a policy perspective, the answer in most cases should be no.
Insurance Coverage for Silica Claims
July 30, 2004
While continuing to fight the decades-old battle with asbestos, corporate policyholders increasingly are confronting another substance that plaintiffs allege can cause serious injury if inhaled: silica — a common mineral found in sand, granite and concrete, among other materials.
