Daubert Motions in Construction Litigation: Standards for Expert Witnesses in Design and Defect Claims

February 1st, 2023|Categories: Emerging Issues Webinars, Featured On-Demand, HB Tort Notes, New Webinars, Tort Litigation, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , , , , |

Daubert Motions in Construction Litigation: Standards for Expert Witnesses in Design and Defect Claims Raising or Defending Daubert Challenges to Admitting Expert Testimony In most construction suits, both sides rely on experts to provide opinions and testimony supporting or against claims of liability and damages. Such expert testimony often involves determining fault for design and construction defects, schedule delays, and worker inefficiency. Expert opinion and testimony impact all parties in a construction dispute, including property owners, developers, financial institutions, design professionals, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and vendors.The Daubert/Frye ruling and the body of law on challenging expert opinions and testimony continue to evolve for construction disputes in both state and federal courts. Courts permit testing expert of testimony and an expert’s foundational methodology or technique to ensure that it is relevant and reliable.Listen as our panel of construction litigators discusses the applicability of the Daubert/Frye standards to the presentation of expert testimony in construction disputes, analyzes what is required to successfully raise or defend a challenge to the admission of expert testimony, and provides guidance for using experts in construction cases. Outline Dispositive motions in the Daubert hearing: the Daubert challenge Frye standards: how they differ from Daubert standards Application to construction cases Application to scheduling, construction defects, and damages Future impact of Daubert/Frye on construction claims Lessons from court rulings A Strafford production specially selected for HB audiences. [...]

Read More

Rule 23(c)(5) Subclasses: Certification, Due Process, Adequate Representation, and Settlement

February 1st, 2023|Categories: Emerging Issues Webinars, Featured On-Demand, HB Tort Notes, New Webinars, Tort Litigation, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , , |

Rule 23(c)(5) Subclasses: Certification, Due Process, Adequate Representation, and Settlement Plaintiffs can define and propose subclasses to address unique issues or to resolve potential intra-class conflicts of interest. Counsel opposing certification will want to emphasize the intra-class conflict as reason to deny certification and show how subclasses render class treatment unmanageable.Due process requires adequacy of representation for all class members, including subclasses. Circuit courts have overturned settlements if they see conflicts of interest among subclasses and the failure of class counsel to ensure independent representation of subclasses.Listen as this experienced panel of class action litigators guides both plaintiff and defense counsel through the effective use of subclasses to resolve the case. Outline Statutory basis of subclasses Types of cases and issues best suited for subclasses Resolving conflicts of interest among subclasses A Strafford production specially selected for HB audiences. Wystan Ackerman Partner Robinson & Cole James Francis Co-Founder Francis Mailman Soumilas Kristen Simplicio Partner Tycko & Zavareei The panel will review these and other key issues: What are the tell-tale signs that a subclass is needed or required? When can subclasses be created? Can there be subclasses within subclasses or is predominance destroyed? What are the due process concerns with subclasses and subclass representation? What should defense counsel consider when deciding whether to oppose certification of [...]

Read More

Modern Removal and Remand Strategies: Forum Defendant Rule; Snap Removal; Effect on Pleadings, Motion Practice

January 27th, 2023|Categories: Emerging Issues Webinars, Featured On-Demand, HB Tort Notes, New Webinars, Tort Litigation, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , , , , |

Modern Removal and Remand Strategies Forum Defendant Rule; Snap Removal; Effect on Pleadings, Motion Practice A defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court can "remove" the case to federal court if there is a diversity of citizenship, except if a "properly joined and served" defendant is a citizen of the forum state. With the advent of electronic filing, defendants now have instantaneous notice of suits and may remove the case before being served, thereby sidestepping the forum defendant rule. Although several U.S. Circuit Courts have approved the practice, a debate remains on whether this practice should be approved.Plaintiffs have their own toolbox to anticipate removal strategies and take preemptive actions to make removal difficult and remand likely. Since all parties can play the literal-reading-of-the-statute card, plaintiffs have seized on ways to bring the "real" parties into the dispute in such a way as to prevent removal.If the case comes to a stop in federal court after removal, the parties must be aware of how the change in forum impacts the rest of the case: deadlines, motions, pleadings, what must be answered, and what is stayed.Listen as this experienced panel of litigators discusses which removal and remand planning and strategies can make the most difference. Outline Statutory authority and procedural requirements Strategies for plaintiffs Avoiding federal question Avoiding diversity, pre- [...]

Read More

Resolving Insurers’ and Insureds’ Settlement Dilemmas When Policy Limits Are Insufficient: Multiple Insured and Multiple Claims

January 27th, 2023|Categories: Featured On-Demand, HB Tort Notes, Tort Litigation, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , , , , |

Resolving Insurers' and Insureds' Settlement Dilemmas When Policy Limits Are Insufficient: Multiple Insured and Multiple Claims Liability insurers, depending on the jurisdiction, may have to accept a policy limit settlement demand when liability is reasonably clear and the amount of the judgment "likely" will exceed the policy limit. Unique problems arise when an insured faces multiple claims from a single occurrence, liability is clear, and the policy limits are insufficient to settle all claims. Options for dealing with the issue exist, but all potentially expose the insurer to bad faith claims. The panel will explore different approaches, the jurisdictions that follow them, and solutions that offer insurers the best protection from extracontractual claims.Equally vexing is the situation in which more than one insured, such as both the owner of a vehicle and its driver, are covered under one policy. A claimant might demand the policy limits but release only one of the insureds. In such a situation, the insurer could face bad faith claims from one insured for refusing to settle and from the other for agreeing to settle.An interpleader action may not be the answer. Interpleading policy limits can leave the insurer vulnerable to accusations of artificial exhaustion, abandonment of the duty to defend, and a bad faith claim that the insurer shirked its duty to use policy funds to limit the [...]

Read More

Litigation Privilege, Attorney Immunity and Ethics: Defending Retaliatory Suits and Ethics Complaints

January 27th, 2023|Categories: HB Tort Notes, Tort Litigation, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , , , , |

Litigation Privilege, Attorney Immunity and Ethics: Defending Retaliatory Suits and Ethics Complaints When attorneys seek to gain an advantage by disclosing or threatening to disclose embarrassing secrets, illegal activity, deny facts known to be true, or otherwise cause fear to the opposing party, they are more frequently being sued for defamation, bad faith, intentional interference with contractual or beneficial relations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, or the like.Sometimes these types of activities are absolutely privileged and sometimes they are only entitled to partial immunity. Much depends on when and where the statements are made and how state courts define “litigation.”Regardless of civil liability, such conduct can lead to ethics complaints. Model Ruel 4.1 attempts to set some boundaries, but it offers no bright line rule. Landry’s Inc., et al. v. Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al (Tex., No. 19-0036, June 15, 2021), and Dorfman v. Smith, 342 Conn 582 (2022), are just two illustrations of the risks lawyers face if they utilize these tactics.Listen as our experienced panel of litigators assists counsel in understanding the judicial proceedings privilege and attorney immunity and the limits of MR 4.1. Outline Statutory authority and procedural requirements Strategies for plaintiffs Avoiding federal question Avoiding diversity, pre- and post-filing Federal question issues as counterclaims; Home Depot v. Jackson Amending the complaint Strategies for defendants Contractual forum selection Snap removal [...]

Read More

Construction Builders Risk and CGL Insurance: Scope of Coverage, Covered Losses, Exclusions, AI Endorsements

January 26th, 2023|Categories: Featured On-Demand, HB Tort Notes, Tort Litigation, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , , |

Construction Builders Risk and CGL Insurance: Scope of Coverage, Covered Losses, Exclusions, AI Endorsements: Mitigation Construction- Related Disputes; Key Challenges for Claims Under Builders Risk Vs CGL Coverage Counsel to builders and developers must consider are who is covered, what property is covered, what limits and sublimits apply, and when/how coverage applies. Because builders risk policies are not standardized, coverage varies dramatically between insurers. Coverage disputes often arise over the types of costs recoverable, calculation of economic damages, and the coverage exclusions and exceptions.For liability disputes, CGL coverage must be adequately placed to cover construction risks during the course of construction as well as after. Typical issues include who is covered, the scope of coverage, and exclusions and conditions that apply.Counsel often must also navigate the interplay between builders risk policies, CGL policies, including wrap policies, and professional liability policies. These issues are influenced by the language of the policies and the parties’ contractual obligations to each other. Attention to the details is necessary to ensure coverage is triggered when necessary.Listen as our authoritative panel guides you through the characteristics of builders risk and CGL insurance policies and how these policies are used to mitigate developer and contractor risks. Outline Builders risk policies Contractual requirements Scope of coverage Troublesome exclusions and conditions Common issues and practice pointers CGL policies [...]

Read More

Allocating CERCLA Liability: Divisibility or Section 113 Equitable Contribution

January 26th, 2023|Categories: Featured On-Demand, HB Tort Notes, Tort Litigation, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , |

Allocating CERCLA Liability: Divisibility or Section 113 Equitable Contribution Assessing Harm, Proving Divisibility of Harm Defense Absent a Bright-Line Test, and Apportioning Costs The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. U.S. significantly changed the landscape for divisibility under CERCLA. However, there is no bright-line test for determining divisibility, and the courts have taken different approaches in evaluating this issue.In decisions involving the Fox River in Wisconsin and the Upper Columbia River in Washington state, as well as opinions from courts in Rhode Island and South Carolina, judges and parties have wrestled with the critical question for divisibility: is the harm "theoretically capable of apportionment"?If a court answers this question with a yes, the party seeking to limit its liability succeeds. If the answer is no, that party must try again under a much less favorable equitable allocation approach. These and other opinions addressing the divisibility/apportionment divide continue to guide courts, litigants, and pre-litigation parties as they attempt to settle or otherwise resolve responsibility at contaminated sites.Listen as our authoritative panel examines the statutory language and what the Burlington Northern decision and its progeny mean for divisibility. The panel will also review cases applying this problematic technical issue and offer practice pointers on which circumstances lend themselves to a divisibility defense and how to present it. Outline Divisibility defense [...]

Read More

Drafting Joint Defense Agreements: Protecting Privilege, Sharing Work Product, Avoiding Disqualification

January 23rd, 2023|Categories: HB Tort Notes, Tort Litigation, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , , |

Drafting Joint Defense Agreements: Protecting the Privilege, Sharing Work Product, Avoiding Disqualification Joint defense agreements can be a valuable tool for counsel representing co-defendants facing a variety of types of litigation, including intellectual property, securities, energy/environment, commercial litigation, antitrust, product liability, and mass torts. Joint defense agreements allow defendants to reduce costs and coordinate strategies, discovery, and filings.Joint defense agreements are not without risks, however.Sharing work product and confidential information among defendants--who are frequently also competitors--may expose and lead to future litigation among the co-defendants. Counsel considering entering into joint defense agreements must carefully scrutinize the pros and cons and establish preemptive safeguards to protect their client's interests and confidential information.Listen as our authoritative panel of experienced litigators examines the critical factors that parties contemplating a joiit defense argument must evaluate, the essential provisions of the deal itself, and strategies for meeting the legal ethics requirements related to joint defense agreements. Outline Considerations before entering a joint defense agreement Advantages and disadvantages Cost Participants What information to share Settlement issues Joint defense agreement Key provisions Provisions concerning disclosure Ethical considerations Conflicts of interest and potential disqualification Protecting privileged information Ethics opinions addressing joint defense A Strafford production specially selected for HB audiences. Caroline Covington Attorney Steptoe & Johnson The panel will review these and [...]

Read More

Environmental Audits: Privilege, Voluntary Disclosure, and Other Legal Issues

January 11th, 2023|Categories: Featured On-Demand, HB Tort Notes, Tort Litigation, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , |

Environmental Audits: Privilege, Voluntary Disclosure and Other Legal Issues: Ensuring Compliance With Environmental Laws, Responding When Violations Are Discovered Environmental audits allow companies to proactively identify and address environmental problems before civil litigation or enforcement actions arise. The EPA and many states offer companies incentives to encourage compliance, including self-reporting identified issues in order to be eligible for potential reduced or eliminated penalties.Whether a newly acquired or long-standing business, companies and their counsel must take measures to ensure ongoing environmental compliance and environmental audits provide an avenue for detecting and correcting potential problems. Regular self-auditing can help reduce governmental penalties and limit injunctive relief faced in enforcement actions, apart from voluntary disclosure of noncompliance to regulatory agencies.There are potential risks associated with voluntarily uncovering and documenting violations, as well as with the disclosure of violations. Audit findings can be evidence of compliance gaps and a company's knowledge of those holes. And audit disclosures may not always lead to a clean resolution of disclosed violations with the regulatory agency. Disclosed information could still lead to enforcement action and also may provide ammunition in private actions against the disclosing party.Listen as our panel of environmental attorneys examines environmental enforcement policies and environmental auditing programs. The panel will discuss privilege and its exceptions, as well as the pros and cons of voluntary disclosures. The panel will also [...]

Read More

PFAS Consumer Fraud Litigation

January 4th, 2023|Categories: Emerging Issues Webinars, Emerging Litigation & Risk, Featured On-Demand, Tort Webinars, Torts-On-Demand-CLE|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

HB Litigation Conferences presents a CLE-eligible webinar PFAS Consumer Fraud Litigation and Regulation On August 26, 2022, yet another PFAS consumer fraud lawsuit was filed against a product manufacturer in which it is alleged that since the products contained PFAS and the company marketed the products as environmentally friendly and safe for use by consumers, a proposed class of consumers was deceived into buying the allegedly unsafe products. The lawsuit is not an isolated incident, as there have been over 20 such lawsuits, almost all of them filed in 2022. With the ever-increasing media, political and scientific attention being given to PFAS, the panelists predict that these lawsuits will continue to increase at an exponentially increasing rate moving forward against companies of all sizes that manufacture and supply products. Bringing together almost 20 years of product litigation experience and decades of scientific expertise in the field of chemicals such as PFAS, the panelists will discuss the legal issues that companies are facing from current or legacy uses of PFAS (whether intentional or not) and practical solutions that can be taken pre-lawsuit to understand and minimize risk.  Questions answered: What do state and federal regulations say about PFAS in drinking water? If your company doesn’t use the two original types of PFAS, are you at less risk of [...]

Read More

U.S. Government Enforcement Actions: Regulatory remediation settlement trends and claims administration best practices

December 1st, 2022|Categories: Emerging Issues Webinars, Emerging Litigation & Risk, Featured On-Demand, Tort Webinars, Torts-On-Demand-CLE|Tags: , , , , , , , , |

HB Litigation Conferences presents a complimentary CLE-eligible webinar on-demand Government Enforcement Actions Regulatory Remediation Settlement Trends and Administration Best Practices Government enforcement actions are increasing. It’s important for attorneys to understand regulatory trends and best practices for remediation and administration, and how these actions differ from traditional class action settlements. Here are some of the questions our speakers will address in this CLE-eligible webinar:  Why are government enforcement actions increasing? What are the common types of government consumer enforcement actions and how do they proceed? How do government enforcement actions differ from class actions? What are the key considerations in settlement negotiations in government enforcement actions? What are the components of settlement agreements in a government enforcement action? What notice efforts are required to help satisfy expected participation rates? Plus, answers to your questions via live chat. Webinar On Demand Recorded January 2023 What you get:  PowerPoint and supplemental materials. Complete recording for later review. Answers to your questions via email. Invitation to contact speakers directly. 1 CLE credit*. CLE assistance. *Subject to state bar rules. For licensed attorneys.  Register Meet the Speakers Mark Rapazzini Senior Director | Kroll Mark has more than 25 years of legal experience in cases ranging from individual [...]

Read More

PFAS Litigation—A Historical Overview and the Growing Trend in Consumer Fraud Lawsuits: What Are the Legal and Business Risks to Companies by John Gardella

November 30th, 2022|Categories: Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Emerging Law Notes, HB Tort Notes, Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, New Featured Post for Home Page, Tort Litigation|Tags: , , , , , , , , |

The Author John P. Gardella (jgardella@cmbg3.com) is a shareholder and Chief Services Officer at CMBG3 Law, where he also chairs the firm’s PFAS, Environmental, Risk Management and Consulting and ESG practice groups. John is the latest addition to the Editorial Board of Directors for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. PFAS Litigation A Historical Overview and the Growing Trend in Consumer Fraud Lawsuits "It is of the utmost importance that businesses along the whole supply chain in the consumer goods sector evaluate their PFAS risk and fully understand the legal arguments that plaintiffs could make against companies in litigation." Abstract: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of over 12,000 man-made compounds. Most people would recognize the brand names Teflon, produced by DuPont, and Scotchgard, produced by 3M. They also go by the nickname “forever chemicals” because they are highly persistent and mobile in the environment and the human body. In addition to bodily injury and environmental pollution litigation, plaintiffs are also bringing suits against companies for claiming their products and the making of their products are safe and green. This [...]

Read More
Go to Top