MASS TORTS | CLASS ACTIONS
News | Insights | Webinars
Biotech, Life Sciences, Food & Drug News from NLR
Biotech, Life Sciences, Food & Drug News from National Law Review
Susan E. Brice and Vince Angermeier on Causation in Toxic Torts
Susan E. Brice and Vince Angermeier on Causation in Toxic Torts Abstract Concepts of “substantial factors,” “any exposure,” and “de minimis” contact have long-supported claims brought by toxic tort plaintiffs against manufacturers. They have furthered tort actions against defendants based on the “cumulative expo-sure” theory, particularly in the asbestos arena, even when a single fiber could not be connected to a specific defendant. But a 2017 Seventh Circuit decision dealing with Illinois law is part of a trend toward tightening up these standards. This article discusses the various cases on this threshold issue as the authors ponder whether this is a movement that needs some pushing. Authors Susan E. Brice (sb@nijmanfranzetti.com) is a partner at Nijman Franzetti, LLP. She has litigated state and federal disputes and has counseled clients on complicated scientific issues arising in environmental law, toxic torts, and product liability. Susan works with scientists on matters in the fields of genomics, toxicology, and epidemiology in industries such as chemical manufacturing, energy production, food, agriculture, and real estate. Vince Angermeier (va@nijmanfranzetti.com) is Of Counsel at Nijman Franzetti, LLP, where he concentrates his work on CERCLA, EPCRA, RCRA, and Clean Water Act matters, a practice enhanced by his environmental engineering experience. Vince has assisted on civil litigation, administrative rulemakings, regulatory and compliance matters involving water, solid waste, and [...]
Melicent Thompson on Coverage for Covid-19 Business Income Losses
Melicent B. Thompson on COVID-19 Coverage Abstract COVID-19 indisputably has taken an enormous economic toll. Governmental shutdown orders early in the pandemic and ongoing restrictions on business’ operations have resulted in a flood of claims for insurance coverage for business income losses attributable to those orders and restrictions. This article reviews the litigation and legislative developments directed at attempting to find insurance coverage for such losses and the reasons why those efforts have been unsuccessful for the most part. Author Melicent B. Thompson (mthompson@gllawgroup.com) is a Partner with the law firm Gfeller Laurie, LLP, in West Hartford, Connecticut. She thanks her fellow Gfeller Laurie, LLP attorneys who contributed to this article. Melicent has close to 25 years of experience in litigation and corporate counseling. She actively practices in Connecticut and Georgia courts in insurance coverage, business disputes, professional liability claims, defense of educational and financial institutions and general liability. Her insurance coverage practice encompasses all areas of first and third party claims and related litigation services, including declaratory judgment actions, defense of bad faith claims and reinsurance matters. Melicent has substantial appellate court experience, having briefed and argued appeals before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Connecticut Supreme and Appellate Courts. Her pro bono work includes serving as General Counsel to the Board of Directors of Gifts [...]
Myriah Jaworski on Arbitration as Defense Against Data Breach Class Actions
Myriah Jaworski on Individual Arbitration as a Defense Strategy Against Data Breach Class Actions Abstract Data privacy class actions are proliferating. Defendant companies may find an effective defense strategy is moving to compel individual arbitration. Not all contracts have the appropriate language, however, and, even if they do, they may not succeed. This article, which will appear in the forthcoming issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, discusses U.S. privacy litigation and case law on compelling arbitration of class claims in the privacy law context, with recommendations for businesses to improve their chances of securing court orders that enforce arbitration language in their agreements. Author Myriah V. Jaworski, Esq. (mjaworski@beckage.com), is a member with the Beckage, a law firm specializing in technology, data security and privacy. She is a Certified Information Privacy Professional, United States (CIPP/US) and Certified Information Privacy Professional, Europe (CIPP/E). She leads Beckage’s Privacy Litigation Practice Group where she represents clients in data breach actions, technology vendor disputes, and the defense of consumer class actions and related regulatory investigations. Myriah is also a former Trial Attorney with the Department of Justice. About The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation is a co-production of HB, Fastcase, and Law Street Media. You can also hear the complementary (and complimentary) Emerging Litigation Podcast wherever podcasts appear. For [...]
Charlie Kingdollar on Emerging Issues Facing the Property & Casualty Insurance Industry
Emerging Issues Facing the Property & Casualty Insurance Industry: What Has, What Is, What Will Be Charlie Kingdollar was Emerging Issues Officer for GenRe where he worked for 40 years, much of which was spent monitoring hundreds of new risks at any given time. In this article, Charlie discusses risks that have long-since emerged but continue today, risks that are starting to reveal themselves, and risks just starting to appear on the horizon. Read or download his article published in the latest issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation.
Purdue Oxy Settlement Offer Greeted With WTH
Company Offers to "Pay" Part of Settlement with Addiction Pharmaceuticals While the Sackler family has upped the ante, the settlement is met with some groans and skepticism. Jessica Hartogs, Editor at LinkedIn News: "Purdue Pharma has offered up a $10 billion restructuring plan that would pay $500 million up front to settle approximately 135,000 claims linked to the company's role in the opioid epidemic. The Sackler family would pay more than $4 billion over a decade and also give up domestic ownership of the company, which is alleged to have fueled the deadly national opioid crisis with its OxyContin drug. They would also admit no wrongdoing. Two dozen state attorneys general immediately rejected the plan, reported NPR." Charlie Kingdollar, Retired Emerging Issues Officer at Gen Re: Members of the Sackler family offered roughly $4.3 billion to resolve sprawling opioid litigation, up from $3 billion initially proposed in settlement discussions. Siladitya Ray, Staff Writer, Forbes: "The new settlement plan put forth by the Sacklers is $1.3 billion higher than their original offer and if approved it will be used to reimburse states, local governments, Native American tribes and other plaintiffs who have successfully sued Purdue for its role in fueling the opioid crisis... As part of the proposal, the $4.28 billion from the Sacklers will be paid in installments over [...]
Western Alliance Bank Webinars On-Demand
Western Alliance Bank Settlement Services Western Alliance Bank offers specialized banking for law firms, claims administrators and related businesses managing class action, mass tort and bankruptcy settlements. We bring you years of expertise in supporting all phases of the settlement process from escrow through distribution with a single point of contact. Our committed team offers a highly personalized banking experience with a focus on exceptional service, flexibility and responsiveness. Class Action Settlements Mass-Torts Bankruptcy Simple to complex attorney-focused fiduciary banking solutions Escrow & Distribution Solutions Learn More & Meet the Team CLE Webinars Compliments of Western Alliance Bank Settlement Services Rule 23 Mandatory Arbitration Data Breach Class Actions Wage & Hour Digital Payments Class Settlement Structures
Chubb’s COVID-19 Claim Denials Draw Litigation from Hollywood
Editor and Managing Director HB Litigation Conferences Editor@LitigationConferences.com Chubb’s COVID-19 Claim Denials Draw Litigation from Hollywood Well-known policyholder and insurance recovery attorney Kirk Pasich and his firm have sued Chubb insurance companies on behalf of policyholders in the entertainment industry to recover millions in losses they suffered as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. Entertainment Business Interruption On Nov. 11, 2020, the firm filed suit on behalf of United Talent Agency LLC in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Vigilant Insurance Co. and Federal Insurance Co. UTA seeks coverage for the millions it lost when concerts and television and movie projections had to be cancelled. The complaint says both carriers are part of the Chubb group, “which has adopted a universal practice of denying coverage for all business interruption claims associated with SARS-CoV-2, Covid-19, and subsequent events” (UTA v. Vigilant, No. 20STCV43745, Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles). Acts affected include Post Malone, Guns N' Roses, and Toby Keith. The case hinges in part on the carriers’ assertion that there was no “physical loss or damage.” UTA finds Vigilant based its finding on little information, and knowing for decades that "many courts have held that the presence of a hazardous substance on a property, including the airspace inside buildings, constitutes property damage and that there may be ‘direct [...]
Heavy Metals in SFO Bay
Legal Writer Law Street Media San Francisco Baykeeper Sues Aviation Part Manufacturer Over Heavy Metal Pollution Reposted with permission of Law Street Media and Fastcase. On Tuesday in the Northern District of California, plaintiff San Francisco Baykeeper filed a civil action against defendants Allied Engineering & Production Corp., Allied Land Co. (collectively Allied), and Stone Boatyard to rectify the alleged past and ongoing contamination of canal shoreline near the San Francisco Bay. The plaintiff brings the suit under the private attorney general provision, asserting rights on behalf of the public against the defendants for supposedly dumping metal shavings in the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal in violation of the law. Baykeeper is an environmental non-profit organization with approximately 3,500 members who live and recreate in and around the San Francisco Bay area. The organization’s mission is “to defend San Francisco Bay from the biggest threats and hold polluters accountable to create healthier communities and help wildlife thrive.” It monitors and investigates pollution as part of its efforts to ensure that the bay is clean and safe for recreation. Defendant Allied Engineering operated a machine shop from 1951 to about 2011, located in Alameda, Calif., on a property that Allied Land owned. The machine shop manufactured aviation industry components and stored hazardous materials, hydraulic oils, [...]
James Beck on the Drug & Device Law Blog: Something Both Sides Should Agree On (re Class Actions)
Senior Life Sciences Policy Analyst Reed Smith LLP Drug & Device Law Blog: Something Both Sides Should Agree On (re Class Actions) We’ll be very clear – as we have before: We don’t like most class actions. Indeed, if given our druthers, we would abolish Rule 23, as it applies to class actions for damages, altogether. But that’s not in the offing anytime soon. Today, we offer a class action decision that we think both sides, us on the defense and those on the plaintiffs side, can agree on, excluding only those responsible for the problem. In Pearson v. Target Corp., 968 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2020), the court came up with one possible solution to the class action “objector problem.” What’s that? Well, once a class action settles (as most do), all too often “objectors” come out of the woodwork. While these objectors purport to assert the interests of the class, usually, all they want is money to make them go away. Or, as described in Pearson: We address here a recurring problem in class-action litigation known colloquially as “objector blackmail.” The scenario is familiar to class-action litigators on both offense and defense. A plaintiff class and a defendant submit a proposed settlement for approval by the district court. A few class members object to the settlement but [...]
Washington AG Sues Juul, Minnesota Judge Tosses RJR’s Suit to Overturn City’s Flavored Tobacco Ban, Verus Reports
Manager of Research Services Verus LLC klavin@verusllc.com 609-466-0427 Photo by Rubén Bagüés on Unsplash Litigation Update: Vaping and Flavored Tobacco Products Lawsuits The Washington state attorney general has filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court against Juul Inc., alleging that the company knowingly targeted minors in its marketing campaign on social media in an effort to push its products on young consumers. In the suit, Attorney Bob Ferguson claimed that in using young models, brightly colored ads and candy-flavored vaping juice, Juul violated Washington state’s consumer protection laws and failed to meet state tobacco product licensing regulations which would make the sales of the company’s e-cigarettes unlawful between August 2016 and April 2018 .... In another tobacco-related case, U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz tossed out R.J. Reynolds’ lawsuit against Edina, MN over the city’s ban on flavored tobacco products. The company had claimed that Edina had overstepped its authority with a ban that was aimed at curbing vaping by younger consumers. In his ruling, Judge Schiltz wrote that the ban fell under a provision of the federal tobacco laws granting local governments the authority to regulate the sale of certain products .... Read more at VerusLLC.com.
Progress of Roundup Settlement in Question, Verus Reports
Manager of Research Services Verus LLC klavin@verusllc.com 609-466-0427 Progress of Roundup Settlement in Question Judge Would Likely Not Have Agreed to a Stay Had He Known About the Contingency On August 27, plaintiffs’ counsel in the multi-district litigation involving Monsanto and its widely used weed killer Roundup, advised the court that parent company Bayer AG appeared to be going back on the settlement agreement announced in June. At that time, the company had agreed to settle about 75% of the 125,000 claims filed by plaintiffs alleging that their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was linked to Roundup use; the settlement was for an estimated $10 billion. At the hearing, Judge Vince Chhabria advised that he had received confidential letters from a number of plaintiffs’ counsel with cases pending in the MDL who were concerned that Bayer AG was going back on the settlement, noting that the company had terminated settlement term sheets and refused to execute master service agreements that would finalize their settlements; Bayer conceded that there were currently no final agreements. Bayer did advise Judge Chhabria that about 667 of the cases currently pending in the MDL had been resolved, a figure that the judge noted was only a fraction of the 4,000 currently filed. The judge also pointed to Bayer’s June 24 announcement of the settlement, [...]