Emerging Litigation Podcast
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 [...]
The Role of Litigation and Regulation in Making the Web More Accessible with Guests Ken Nakata and Hiram Kuykendall
According to the International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness there are 43 million people around the world living with blindness, and 300 million living with moderate to severe visual impairment. Put those statistics next to these: There are nearly 2 billion websites, and 550,000 created every day. Shouldn’t sight-impaired people have the same access to these sites as sighted people? Of course they should. There is good news. After previously announcing guidance, the DOJ says new regulations are on the way under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which describes the obligations for state and local governments. My guests say there are many reasons to be excited about this. My guests say there are many reasons to be excited about this. Ken Nakata is Co-Founder and Principal at Converge Accessibility, whose solutions help make sure websites and other technologies are accessible to people with disabilities. Ken is former Senior Trial Attorney with the DOJ Disability Rights Section where he developed nationwide ADA policies for the internet. Joining Ken is Hiram Kuykendall, Chief Technology Officer at Microassist, an Austin-based learning and development consulting. Hiram is a technical leader with hands-on experience in instructional design and digital accessibility. 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 Host Emerging Litigation Podcast P.S. Anytime I make a self-effacing remark about my ignorance concerning this or any subject, it's strictly for entertainment value, a story I will cling to with every fiber of my being. Ken Nakata is Co-Founder and [...]
Litigation’s Role in Gun Safety Advocacy with Adam Skaggs
We’re closing in on 400 million guns in America, weapons that have been used to kill 1.5 million Americans between 1968 and 2017. Can litigation be an effective tool in curbing this loss of life? In 2020 alone there were more than 45,000 gun deaths. The beyond tragic and senseless mass shootings at schools has become all too routine. Most Americans want stricter gun laws which they believe will reduce the senseless killing in our country, which leads the world in both the number of privately owned firearms and gun-related deaths. The Supreme Court, of course, didn't take public opinion into account when it struck down a more than century old New York City ban on concealed firearms. Politicians do, however, pay close attention to polls. At the federal level, President Joe Biden signed a bipartisan law designed to make Americans safer in our gun-toting nation. Hailed as a "great start" and a rare but welcome exercise in reaching across the aisle, the law will result in safer citizens, but didn't include much of what gun advocates say is really needed to effect meaningful change. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a new law that gives citizens incentives to pursue gun manufacturers and dealers who sell illegal firearms. In New York, Democratic leaders, undaunted by the Supreme Court, have pushed through new gun restrictions at vulnerable locations like schools, malls, and stadiums. But what can lawyers and lawsuits do about it? Plenty. What reasonable measurers can be put into place that will not infringe on Second Amendment rights? Several. Are we seeing litigation over these issues? You bet. For more specifics, listen to my interview with Adam Skaggs, chief counsel and policy director at leading gun safety advocacy group Giffords Law Center, co-founded by former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. Prior to Giffords Law Center Adam was senior counsel at Everytown for [...]
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.
Emerging Litigation Journal
The Use—and Abuse—of Rule 41(a) to Destroy Federal Question Jurisdiction Post-Removal
The Authors John defends manufacturers in product liability litigation involving a range of products, e.g., ATVs, RVs, institutional chemicals, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals. From single cases to mass tort litigation and class actions, John has defended clients in courtrooms around the country. Michael is General Counsel of Thor Motor Coach Inc., a final-stage manufacturer of motor homes headquartered in Elkhart, Indiana. He is also an adjunct professor of commercial law at the Notre Dame Law School. Taryn focuses her practice on litigation. She has experience dealing with products liability, discovery issues, corporate structure and governance, wealth management, private and commercial lending, real estate, and Indian affairs for lobbying both on state and federal levels. Taryn contributed valuable research to this article. 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. The Use—and Abuse—of Rule 41(a) to Destroy Federal Question Jurisdiction Post-Removal "A plaintiff seeking to divest the court of subject matter jurisdiction post-removal should at least comply with the requirements of the rule they have relied on. Glossing over those requirements undermines the purpose and intent of both the rule and removal statutes. The case should stay put in federal court in the absence of compliance." Abstract: Defendants in civil litigation can level the often uneven state court playing field by removing cases to federal court through federal question removal. In those cases in which the plaintiff has alleged a claim grounded in federal law, the defendant may remove the case to an often more impartial federal forum. Once removed, the plaintiff has few options for defeating removal. About the only option available to the plaintiff is to forgo the federal claim and divest the court of federal question jurisdiction, forcing remand to [...]
The Rise of Multi-Claimant Litigation in England and How Companies Can Manage Potential Exposure
The Authors Sheila L. Birnbaum Mark S. Cheffo Dorothy Cory-Wright Evan Flowers Jacqueline Harrington Will Sachse Stephen Surgeoner Rachel Leary Caroline Power Julie Witham 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. The Rise of Multi-Claimant Litigation in England and How Companies Can Manage Potential Exposure "With the growth in US/English partnerships for bringing multi-claimant actions in England, there may be an increased interest in leveraging US discovery for copycat English claims. The larger mass torts become in the United States, the more likely they are to feed into related multi-claimant actions in England." Abstract: Recent court decisions have signaled the English courts’ willingness to embrace multi-claimant litigation and to broaden the types of questions decided on a collective basis. These developments have led UK-based plaintiffs’ lawyers to expand mass tort filings, including doing so in partnership with US plaintiffs’ lawyers who are actively advertising in England. This article provides an overview of multi-claimant litigation in England, highlights some of the factors that may lead to its increase, and discusses steps that companies operating in the English market can take now to manage potential exposure. Three primary mechanisms for bringing collective actions before an English court: 1) Representative actions, group litigation orders (GLOs), and collective actions before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). 2) Representative actions, in their current form, and GLOs are products of the general Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). 3) Representative actions originated in the common law and permit a representative claimant or defendant with the “same interest” in a claim to represent that interest on behalf of a class. Download the article now!
How Companies Seeking to Leave China for Mexico Can Mitigate Their Legal Risks and Protect Against New Ones
The Author Dan Harris (dan@harrisbricken.com) is co-founder of Harris Bricken where he focuses his practice on international law and protecting businesses in their foreign operations. A leading authority on the subject, he is also editor of the highly regarded China Law Blog, and a valued member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal of 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. How Companies Seeking to Leave China for Mexico Can Mitigate Their Legal Risks and Protect Against New Ones "Chinese manufacturers commonly seek retaliation against foreign buyers that cease buying product from them. For this reason, it is critical that you line up your new suppliers (preferably in a country other than China) and have them ready to go before you even hint to anyone in China that you might cease or reduce production with an existing China supplier." Abstract: The author, one of the leading authorities on the legal issues related to international manufacturing, discusses the risks companies will face if they move their manufacturing out of China, what they should do to mitigate those risks, and what new risks they will face in a new country, such as Mexico. He comments on a variety of concepts, including manufacturing agreements, protection of intellectual property, strategies for a safe departure, potential retaliation tactics, and even personal security matters. Download the article now!
HB Webinars on CeriFi LegalEdge
Content Partners
