Emerging Litigation Podcast
PFAS Consumer Fraud Litigation with John Gardella
These stubborn chemicals are everywhere. But when they find their way into products, shouldn't someone tell consumers? Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) are a family of more 12,000 manmade compounds. That's a huge family. 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 bringing suits against companies for claiming their products and the making of their products are safe and green. New consumer lawsuits seeking millions in damages are targeting oral hygiene products -- like a recent case involving dental floss -- cosmetics, apparel, and food packaging. Listen to my interview with environmental lawyer John Gardella of CMBG3 Law who discusses why PFAS concern citizens, media and legislators, what legal risks corporations face, and why we're seeing a surge in consumer fraud litigation. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. (actual size) Tom Hagy Litigation Enthusiast and Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast Home Page LinkedIn PFAS Consumer Fraud Litigation with John Gardella John Gardella is a Shareholder and recognized thought leader on PFAS issues. He is licensed to practice in Massachusetts and Tennessee. A seasoned trial attorney with over 75 verdicts, John is the Chair of the firm’s PFAS, Environmental, Risk Management & Consulting, and ESG practice groups. His thought leadership and predictive risk abilities with respect to PFAS [...]
Medical Monitoring for Modern Times with Ed Gentle
Medical Monitoring for Modern Times: Attorney and court-appointed neutral Ed Gentle shares his vision for a new paradigm for mass torts. Marissa, a resident of a small town in Kentucky, learned that for some time her drinking water may have been contaminated with so-called "forever chemicals" or PFAS. It's really a collection of chemicals used in products like fire-suppression foam, cookware, stain-resistant sprays, and food packaging. A local public radio reporter covering the story asked Marissa for her reaction. "I was never informed," she said. "And now I'm worried, like, I hope I don't have issues some day in my life." Marissa's concern is like that of many people who find themselves in this situation and is at the center of this episode. When a case like Marissa's goes to court, plaintiffs will seek a ruling that the responsible parties pay for years of medical monitoring. That means they are suing often without signs of an existing injury, and that defendants must pay for something when an injury may not arise. Attorney, author, and court-appointed case neutral, Edgar C. Gentle III, says that approach is antiquated. He outlines a better way in his 2014 essay titled The Medical Monitoring Tort Remedy: Its Nationwide Status, Rationale and Practical Application (A Possible Dynamic Tort Remedy for Long Term Tort Maladies). Now he shares his latest insights on the Emerging Litigation Podcast. Ed Gentle is the Founding Partner of Gentle Turner & Benson, LLC in Birmingham, Ala. He is a Rhodes Scholar and has five college degrees, three in law. He has practiced for nearly four decades, spending 90% of his professional time serving as a neutral assigned by judges to oversee aspects of mass tort litigation and settlements. He has helped create and administer over $2 billion in settlements during the past 25 years. Education: Bachelor of Science, Auburn University, summa cum laude, [...]
Covid Insurance Coverage Decisions with Guest Marshall Gilinsky. Are Policyholders Catching Up?
According to the online Covid Coverage Litigation Tracker (CCLT) run by Penn Law there have been more than 2,300 insurance coverage cases filed over denial of claims relating to Covid-19. Restaurants and bars were hardest hit by the pandemic and so led the way in seeking – and being denied – coverage, too. They are also leading the way in suing their insurers. The top five insurers in the defense position are Chubb Limited at #5, then #4 Lloyds of London, #3 Cincinnati Financial, and #2 Zurich. And in the #1 position facing the most coverage suits is Hartford. The insurance industry started off strong when this litigation began, winning the vast majority of the coverage suits. And they continue to do well, scoring with the argument that many of the claims do not involve actual property damage. Government closures don’t cause property damage, they argue. Courts have largely been siding with the carriers – but not all. Policyholders, a tenacious bunch, appear to be chipping away at the body of law in this suddenly expanding category. A recent case involving a New Orleans restaurant against Lloyd’s was penciled into the win column for carriers by a trial court , but an appeals court erased it and wrote the policyholder a narrow 3-2 victory. The appeals court said the language of the policy was ambiguous, and therefore had to be construed in favor of the restaurant. What's it mean? Does this bode well for policyholders? Or can we expect to see, as we did in previous coverage wars, a mixed bag of decisions across the nation? For more on that case and today’s Covid coverage landscape, listen to my interview with Marshall Gilinsky, a shareholder in the New York office of Anderson Kill. Marshall has represented policyholders of various policy types for two decades, including those seeking coverage [...]
A Shameless Plug for Our Content Services
Your content marketing is everything you’ve ever dreamed of. Right?
Sara is marketing director at a boutique law firm. When we asked her how their blog was going, she made a sad face. But then, we made Sara smile.*
Critical Legal Content was founded by Tom Hagy, former Editor & Publisher of Mealey’s Litigation Reports and VP at LexisNexis, founder of HB, current litigation podcaster and editor-in-chief. CLC’s mission is to help smaller firms and service providers not only create content — blogs, articles, papers, webinars, podcasts (like the stuff on this site) — but also to get it out there. How? Via social media, this website, your website, and potential via our podcast and journal which we publish in collaboration with vLex Fastcase and Law Street Media. The goal is to attract readers and dizzy them with your brilliance.
*Inspired by actual events.
Create content like a real legal publisher.
Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation
Analysis of Target Decision that Loss-of-Use Damages Included Card Replacement Costs Post-Data Breach | By Joshua Mooney, Judy Selby, and Tracey Kline | Kennedys Law GalleryAnalysis of Target Decision that Loss-of-Use Damages Included Card Replacement Costs Post-Data Breach | By Joshua Mooney, Judy Selby, and Tracey Kline | Kennedys Law
Analysis of Target Decision that Loss-of-Use Damages Included Card Replacement Costs Post-Data Breach | By Joshua Mooney, Judy Selby, and Tracey Kline | Kennedys Law
A Significant Deviation: Target v. Ace Finds Loss-of-Use Damages Included Post-Breach Card Replacement Analysis On March 22, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled that two ACE insurers were obligated to indemnify Target Corporation (“Target”) for the amounts it paid to settle claims related to replacement of payment cards impacted in a data breach, vacating an earlier decision in which the court found that Target was not entitled to coverage. Target Corp. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., No. 19-CV-2916 (WMW/DTS), 2022 WL 848095 (D. Minn. Mar. 22, 2022), vacating 517 F. Supp. 3d 798 (D. Minn. 2021). The new decision deviates from how other courts have evaluated general liability coverage for damages because of “loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured.” Insurers would do well to take notice. Background In 2013, Target was the victim of a massive data breach that occurred after hackers installed malicious software on its computer network, which enabled them to steal the payment card data and personal contact information of an estimated 110 million individuals with Target payment cards (the “Data Breach”). Multiple lawsuits were brought against Target, including suits by financial institutions (the “Issuing Banks”) that had issued debit and credit cards (the “Payment Cards”) affected by the Data Breach. The Issuing Banks filed class action lawsuits against Target, which were consolidated, along with various consumer suits, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, in In re: Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, All Financial Institutions Cases, MDL No. 14-2522 (the “Issuing Banks Litigation”). In their Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Issuing Banks asserted various causes of action against Target, including a claim for negligence by which they alleged that Target breached its duty to implement adequate technical systems or security practices that could have prevented the loss of customers’ sensitive personal and financial [...]
Flying Cameras: Gaps in Drone Regulation and How Courts Can Fill Them … at Least for Now
Authors With deep experience in the law and regulation of unmanned aerial vehicles, Kathryn practices in the Providence, R.I., offices of Robinson+Cole. She is a member of the firm’s groups that focus on business litigation, data privacy and security, and drone compliance. Kathryn is also a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation and the Emerging Litigation Podcast. Blair Robinson is a cybersecurity intern at Robinson+Cole. She will graduate in 2023 with a J.D. from the Roger Williams University School of Law to complement her Masters of Science degree in Cybersecurity also from Roger Williams University. Get CLE Flying Cameras: Gaps in Drone Regulation and How Courts Can Fill Them … at Least for Now Drones have rapidly transformed dozens of industries since hitting the commercial market. International aid groups use medical drones to deliver life-saving medications and vaccines to remote areas. Agricultural drones have revolutionized how farmers tend their fields. Film and television producers embrace drones for their ability to capture once prohibitively expensive or outright impossible camera shots. Hobbyists love the technology for a variety of recreational purposes. However, as drones have become increasingly commonplace, lawmakers and policymakers have struggled with effectively regulating this emerging domain. In addition, no federal law, state law, or industry best practice adequately addresses the unique privacy and cybersecurity risks drone operations pose. Until federal regulation catches up with the technology, lawyers could move courts to mitigate the issue by arguing for strict liability for drone operators and manufacturers. Although drones may seem like traditional aircraft, they actually pose unique privacy concerns. Drone systems rely on real-time and simultaneous data exchanges between the operator, GPS positioning, cloud-based processing and telemetry, and the drone itself. Each facet in such a complex system presents a new opportunity for attackers. Besides the vulnerability [...]
Full Ninth Circuit Removes Unwarranted Hurdles to Class Certification
The Authors Co-founding partner at MoginRubin LLP, Jonathan Rubin focuses his legal practice exclusively on antitrust and competition law and policy. Based in Washington, DC, he has litigated and led trial teams in major antitrust cases throughout the country. He has published in influential academic journals and has spoken to numerous professional groups, including the Directorate General for Competition of the European Commission, the Antitrust Section of the American Bar Association, and the American Antitrust Institute. Dan Mogin, founding and managing partner of MoginRubin LLP, concentrates his practice on antitrust, unfair competition and complex business litigation. He has served as lead counsel in numerous large antitrust cases, chaired the Antitrust Section of the California Bar, taught antitrust law and was editor-in-chief of a leading competition law treatise. Explore more from MoginRubin LLP! Blog: Emboldened by New Resources and Expanded Authority, Feds Continue 10-Year Look Back at Chinese Investment. By Dan Mogin, Jonathan Rubin, Jennifer Oliver, and Timothy LaComb. List OnDemand CLE Webinar: The Antitrust Case Against Google. Dan Mogin, Jonathan Rubin, Jennifer Oliver, Timothy LaComb, John Newman, Dr. Alan Grant Blog: FTC’s Case Against Facebook Will Test the Flexibility of U.S. Antitrust Law.Authors: Jonathan Rubin and Jennifer Oliver, MoginRubin LLP Blog: Full Ninth Circuit Removes Unwarranted Hurdles to Class Certification. Jonathan Rubin, Dan Mogin. Journal: Policy Derailed: Can U.S. Antitrust Policy Toward Standard Essential Patents Get Back on Track by Jonathan Rubin Webinar: Class Certification After Olean v. Bumble Bee with Jonathan Rubin, James Bogan lll, Jonathan Cohn, Bradley Hamburger. Journal: FTC v. Amazon: Market Definitions and Section 5 of the FTC Act Podcast: Algorithmic Software Facilitated Price Fixing with Jonathan Rubin Plus, additional insights from the MoginRubin Blog. Full Ninth Circuit Removes Unwarranted Hurdles to Class Certification “Nothing in Rule 23 suggests that the presence of more than a de minimis number of uninjured class members affects whether questions affecting only individual class [...]
HB Webinars on the West LegalEdcenter
Content Partners
