State Farm v. Campbell: Curtailment of Punitive Damages?
For the fifth time in 12 years, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case involving the imposition of punitive damages and, once again, the Court articulated criteria and principles against which lower courts and litigants can measure the type of conduct that should support an award of punitive damages. <i>State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. v. Campbell,</i> 123 S.Ct. 1513 (April 7, 2003).
Practice Tip: Pleading Punitive Damages After Supreme Court's State Farm Decision
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that any award of punitive damages designed to punish out-of-state conduct would not be permitted because it violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. <i>State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell,</i> __US__, 2003 WL 1791206 (decided April 7, 2003). This decision will effect broad changes in current product liability law with respect to punitive damages; however, the most important immediate change to practitioners will be in pleading.
Manufacturers Beware: Liability When Warning Labels Are Ignored or Disobeyed
Manufacturers may be surprised to learn that a growing number of courts are awarding damages to plaintiffs who have ignored or failed to follow product warning labels and instructions. Courts have often barred plaintiffs from recovering in such cases by applying a presumption that product warnings will be read and heeded. This has provided a safe harbor from liability for manufacturers and sellers.
Contributory Copyright Infringement and Peer-to-Peer Networks
The second labor of Hercules was to kill the monstrous nine-headed Hydra. When Hercules struck off one of the Hydra's heads, two new ones grew forth in its place. The entertainment industry's fight against its modern menace, peer-to-peer file sharing networks, presents no lesser task. The record companies successfully shut down Napster (<i>see A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.</i>, 114 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Cal. 2000), <i>aff'd in part, rev'd in part</i>, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001)) and Aimster (<i>see In re Aimster Copyright Litig.,</i> 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17054 (N.D. Ill. 2002)) only to witness the instant emergence of Gnutella, Grokster, Kazaa, Morpheus, and similar services (as well as the re-emergence of Aimster, now known as Madster). We know, of course, that Hercules completed his second labor after figuring out that he could prevent growth of the new heads by burning the wound. However, unlike the Hydra, peer-to-peer file sharing technologies evolve quickly and swiftly adapt to changed circumstances. Thus, Hollywood's plaintiffs are likened more to Sisyphus (who was condemned to an eternity of pushing the rock up the mountain only to have it fall down again) than to Hercules. The most recent example is the decision in <i>Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.</i>, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6994 (C.D. Cal. April 25, 2003).
Insurance Company Insolvencies: A Primer for Corporate Policy Holders
The past several years have seen some major property-casualty insurance companies on the ropes and worse, far worse. Home Indemnity Company and Legion Insurance Company, two notable insolvency casualties, have left their policyholders without the full protection paid for and required. Sadly, they pale in comparison to the train wreck that is Reliance Insurance Company. The demise of Reliance has had repercussions for insurance buyers and others all over. Once a fixture in the directors' and officers' ('D&O') liability insurance marketplace, among other insurance markets, Reliance is now well underway in the liquidation process, after a brief and unsuccessful attempt at 'rehabilitation.' The Reliance debacle has left policyholders scrambling to protect themselves while state insurance departments wrangle with one another in an attempt to snap up a share of the inadequate pool of assets left behind in the collapse of Reliance.
Congress vs 'Defensive Medicine'
Due to the rising cost of 'defensive medicine,' the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed legislation to limit or ban punitive damages in product liability lawsuits over injuries allegedly caused by FDA-approved products.
<b><i>Decision of Note</b></i> No Credit Needed For Public Domain Materials
In a major narrowing of the Lanham Act, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the law allows the copying of public domain material without giving credit to its source. The 8-0 ruling in <i>Dastar Corp. v. 20th Century Fox Film Corp. </i> removes Lanham Act liability from parties that repackage facts or information that originated elsewhere. It could sweep away lawsuits often filed against major studios and publishers by authors and others who claim they were given insufficient credit for their contributions.
Bit Parts
Recent developments in entertainment law.
