Emerging Litigation Podcast
Social Inflation’s Impact on Jury Verdicts
Social Inflation's Impact on Jury Verdicts in Healthcare Litigation Our guests wrote in the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation: “These outsize awards are often driven by myriad factors including sympathetic jurors, societal conceptions about income and wealth of corporations, the use of emotion-driven ‘Reptile Theory’ tactics by plaintiff attorneys, the media spotlight on ‘bad apple’ physicians, and numerous other social factors. A new factor that influences elevated jury verdicts is the increasing volume of information—whether true or false—that is exchanged on social media platforms.” Listen to my interview with Hall Booth Smith P.C. attorneys Sandra Cianflone, Samantha Myers, and Lindsay Nishan, each of whom represents members of the healthcare industry, as they discuss what drives large verdict and what attorneys should consider in mitigating the effects of this phenomenon. In keeping with tradition, we may have strayed a bit from the topic. One guest’s Aunt Lulu made an appearance. It turns out Covid lockdowns may have produced more enthusiastic jurors. And I added another reason why writing and podcasting, and not the practice of law, was a better career path for me. (Apparently lawyers aren’t supposed to laugh in people’s faces. Noted.) This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, 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, or want to tell me how much you learned from Sandie, Sam, Lindsay, or Aunt Lulu, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Tom Hagy Litigation Enthusiast Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast Jurors' perceptions of big corporations, insurance companies, drug companies, physicians and other healthcare providers is increasingly colored by TV and social media. [...]
Persuasion Science for Trial Lawyers with John Blumberg
Persuasion Science for Trial Lawyers with John Blumberg John joins me to discuss his study of the science behind persuasion. He examines a number of important concepts for trial attorneys, such as how emotions overcome rational thought, and how mental fatigue interferes with how we receive information, leading us to take mental shortcuts rather than doing the hard work of critical thinking. He also writes about understanding the differences between liberal and conservative brains. In addition to being an author, John is a board-certified trial attorney based in Long Beach, California. He handles both legal and medical malpractice litigation and is on American Board of Trial Advocates. You will especially want to hear my contributions, such as what I know about the rule of threes. For example, a joke about a doctor, a lawyer, and a duck is much funnier than one about just a doctor and a lawyer. Unless, of course, at least one of them is a duck. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, 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 Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how much you learned from John, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Tom Hagy Litigation Enthusiast and Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast "Your proposition may be good, but let’s have one thing understood: Whatever it is, I’m against it. And even when you’ve changed it or condensed it—I’m against it!" —Professor Wagstaff (Groucho Marx) in the 1932 movie Horse Feathers Attorney John P. Blumberg’s new book, Persuasion Science for Trial Lawyers, published by Fastcase Full Court Press, “takes [...]
PFAS Science with Jaana Pietari and Jim Fenstermacher and Litigation with Bob Chesler
PFAS Science with Jaana Pietari and Jim Fenstermacher and Litigation with Bob Chesler In Part 1 of the episode, we discussed the PFAS from the scientific and environmental engineering perspective. And to do that I was fortunate to have Jim Fenstermacher and Dr. Jaana Pietari from the global engineering firm Ramboll. Jim and Jaana have deep experience in environmental remediation involving a variety of contaminants, including PFAS. In Part 2, I am joined by Robert Chesler of Anderson Kill. Bob is a long-time expert on insurance coverage for long-tail and other claims. He's considered a guru in the field, and has represented policyholders in disputes over coverage with insurers for as long as I've known him. It's a serious subject and these are seriously qualified folks. I did my part to make a mockery of scientific terms as I struggled to say the name of this family of chemicals. Fortunately for you my guests were much more linguistically nimble and it is their voices you will hear more of. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, 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 Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how much you learned from Jaana, Jim and Bob, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Tom Hagy Litigation Enthusiast and Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast p.s. Here's a bonus for you. Write to me and I will send you the latest issue of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation with my compliments. That's some serious value right there. In our first two-part episode, we dive into the troubling existence of a group of chemicals referred to as PFAS, with the [...]
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
Biometric Privacy Laws: Companies Will Need Insurance as Protection From New and Expanding Liability
The Authors * Cort T. Malone (cmalone@andersonkill.com) is a shareholder in the New York and Stamford offices of Anderson Kill and practices in the Insurance Recovery and the Corporate and Commercial Litigation Departments. He represents policyholders in insurance coverage litigation and dispute resolution, with an emphasis on commercia general liability insurance, directors and officers insurance, employment practices liability insurance, advertising injury insurance, and property insurance issues. Jade W. Sobh (jsobh@andersonkill.com) is an attorney in Anderson Kill’s New York office. Jade focuses his practice on insurance recovery, exclusively on behalf of policyholders, as well as regulatory and complex commercial litigation matters. 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. Biometric Privacy Laws: Companies Will Need Insurance as Protection From New and Expanding Liability "Businesses may look to various types of insurance policies for protection from the sudden and ever-increasing liability under present and soon to pass biometric data privacy laws, including commercial general liability insurance, employment practices liability insurance, cyber insurance, and directors & officers (D&O) insurance." Abstract: As more states follow Illinois in enacting biometric privacy laws, the risk that companies will be hit with lawsuits and extensive damages awards increases. Employers are among the most active collectors of this type of data, collecting fingerprints and deploying facial recognition for timekeeping and security purposes. Several multi-million-dollar settlements have been reported for violations of biometric privacy laws. Meta, formerly Facebook, paid $650 million to resolve claims that it improperly stored face scans of its users. When companies turn to their insurance carriers, policyholders have a good track record of receiving coverage. Now that these claims are becoming more prevalent, will the insurance industry work to limit its exposure in this space? What should [...]
Asymmetrical Combat: Bad Faith Liability in Insurance Recovery Cases
The Author William G. Passannante is co-chair of Anderson Kill’s Insurance Recovery Group and is a nationally recognized authority on policyholder insurance recovery in D&O, E&O, asbestos, environmental, property, food-borne illness, and other insurance disputes, with an emphasis on insurance recovery for corporate policyholders and educational and governmental institutions. 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. Asymmetrical Combat: Bad Faith Liability in Insurance Recovery Cases "Insurance policies are a unique product that requires the policyholder perform first—by paying insurance premiums—while the insurance company’s performance—the payment of the claim amount—is delayed until the insurance company determines to do so." Abstract: Policyholder counsel see claims that an insurer violated its duty of good faith and fair dealing is an essential tool in leveling the playing field in policyholder–insurer disputes, especially in high-stakes litigation. Insurance companies write the policies, employ lobbyists, exchange information with each other, and, of course, have more experience handling claims. So, the author writes, bad faith allegations bring more balance to the relationship and provide a disincentive to “the profitable breach of the insurance promise.” He discusses above-policy limits risks for insurers, as well as attorneys’ fees, interest on unpaid claims, punitive damages, and more. Introduction: Bad faith insurance litigation presents high-stakes risks for insurance companies in the unbalanced battle between insurance companies and their policyholders. The asymmetric nature of the insurance claims process—insurance companies draft the insurance policies, lobby legislatures as an industry repeat litigant, exchange superior information among themselves, and have more experience with claims than any policyholder—means that policyholders need a counterbalance. Insurance company liability for bad faith and related above-policy limits liabilities can act as that counterbalance. Insurance company bad faith and related doctrines prove useful [...]
Taking the High Ground: Where Cannabis Insurance Litigation Is Trending (and Why)
The Authors John B. McDonald is an experienced litigator practicing in the Seattle and New York offices of Harris Bricken, where he represents clients in complex commercial, insurance, and partnership matters. Jihee Ahn is an experienced complex commercial litigator with Harris Bricken. She also chairs the firm’s Dispute Resolution/Litigation practice. 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. Taking the High Ground: Where Cannabis Insurance Litigation Is Trending (and Why) "Absent a choice of law provision, the location where most of the insured activity took place will likely dictate which law applies. But how have federal courts reacted to applying cannabis-friendly state law in a forum where federal law arguably addresses underlying state concerns? The answer is: inconsistently." Abstract: The use and possession of cannabis remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. But a patchwork of state laws is bringing the country closer to some form of legalization. Some states allow its use for medical purposes, others have made it legal for recreational purposes, and others have decriminalized it. But when cannabis is involved in disputes that lead to litigation, and that litigation leads to policyholder–insurer disputes, that state law patchwork and the illegality of cannabis under federal law is when things get complicated. This tension plays out in several other aspects of running a cannabis business, such as banking and interstate transportation of goods. In this article, the authors discuss how it is up to litigators to frame their cases in ways that will determine the outcome of important disputes over insurance coverage. Introduction: Like several other litigation issues presented by the (legal) emerging cannabis market in the United States, insurance disputes between cannabis policyholders and their insurers remain [...]
HB Webinars on CeriFi LegalEdge
Content Partners
