Search Results (1971)
Documents on Litigation, Construction, Insurance
Show: results per page
|Not so Fast - The Texas Supreme Court Shows Reluctance to Allow Claims for Spoliation of Evidence|
Matthew A. Barley; Butler Snow LLP;
February 26, 2015, previously published on February 16, 2015Not so Fast - The Texas Supreme Court Shows Reluctance to Allow Claims for Spoliation of Evidence
In Wackenhut Corp. v. Gutierrez, 2015 Tex. LEXIS 112, 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 289 (Tex. 2015), the Texas Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict against Wackenhut because a spoliation instruction was...
Federal District Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction to Hear Life
Insurance Case Where Plaintiffs Did not Sustain any Injuries Within the
Meaning of Article III|
Jhanelle A. Graham; Semmes, Bowen & Semmes A Professional Corporation;
February 25, 2015, previously published on December 2014In Jeffrey Higdon, As Trustee Of The Life Insurance Trust Dated November 1, 1991 v. Lincoln National Insurance Co. et al., Plaintiff Jeffrey F. Higdon, as Trustee of the John J. Germenko Life Insurance Trust Dated November 1, 1991 (the “Trust”), sought to recover the death benefits of...
|Proposed Legislation to change Chapter 558|
Sanjay Kurian; Becker Poliakoff P.A.;
February 20, 2015, previously published on February 4, 2015The Legislature will be considering legislation this year to change Chapter 558, Florida Statutes. Chapter 558 is required process for any party seeking to pursue claims for construction defects. The original goal of Chapter 558 was to provide an opportunity to settle defect claims without...
|Supreme Court Changes Standard Of Review For Patent Claim Construction Rulings|
Ryan M. Corbett; Burr & Forman LLP;
February 17, 2015, previously published on January 23, 2015In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Supreme Court revised the standard of review used by the Federal Circuit for nearly twenty years in reviewing claim construction rulings, replacing a de novo standard with a “clearly erroneous” standard. Teva sued Sandoz for...
|Court of Appeal Clarifies Rules Regarding Contact with Experts|
Visnja Jovanovic; Blaney McMurtry LLP;
February 17, 2015, previously published on January 30, 2015Yesterday, the Ontario Court of Appeal handed down its highly anticipated decision in Moore v. Getahun. The decision provides much needed guidance for litigators and their clients in relation to the role of counsel in interacting with an expert witness in the preparation of an expert’s...
|Negotiating Admitted Facts in Pretrial Stipulation|
Thomas E. Hanson; Morris James LLP;
February 13, 2015, previously published on January 28, 2015Determining admitted facts can be one of the more difficult aspects of preparing a pretrial stipulation. Parties often propose factual statements that are advantageous to their position, while resisting facts that may favor their opponents. There is also a tendency to take a cautious approach and...
|New Jersey Creates More Difficult Independent Contractor Test for State Wage Law Purposes|
Thomas R. Bundy, Matt Gatewood, Allegra J. Lawrence-Hardy, H. Karl Zeswitz; Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP;
February 13, 2015, previously published on January 16, 2015On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of New Jersey articulated the test to be used in determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or employee for purposes of the state’s Wage Payment Law and Wage and Hour Law. Any company that contracts with independent contractors in New Jersey...
|Costs Consequences: The Case of Hoang v. Vicentini|
Thomas Durcan; Blaney McMurtry LLP;
February 12, 2015, previously published on November 21, 2014The Ontario Superior Court recently sent a much-welcome message with respect to costs awards in its decision Hoang v. Vicentini. The action involved a six year old pedestrian who was struck by a car, just after being dropped off at a busy intersection by his father. The six year old was seriously...
|Court of Appeal Affirms the Crown's 10 Day Notice Provision|
Blaney McMurtry LLP;
February 11, 2015, previously published on November 21, 2014The Proceedings Against the Crown Act (“PACA”) requires that 10 days’ notice be provided to the Crown where the action involves occupier’s liability, failing which, the claim is a nullity. Courts have been critical of the 10 day PACA notice and have been loath to apply it.
|Tenth Circuit Reminds Insurer Cannot Use the Attorney-Client Privilege as Both a Sword and a Shield|
Jensen Varghese, Colin B. Willmott; Goldberg Segalla LLP;
February 10, 2015, previously published on January 13, 2015The Tenth Circuit in Seneca Insurance Co. v. Western Claims, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24172 (10th Cir. Dec. 22, 2014), affirmed a district court’s decision to allow the discovery and admission into evidence of correspondence between Seneca Insurance Company (Seneca) and its counsel...