Hot Topic: UPMIFA in the Context of Financial System Instability
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 384: Listen and Learn -- The Business Judgment Rule (Corporations)
Nonprofit Basics: Director Duties and Best Practices for the Typical Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 184: Listen and Learn -- The Business Judgment Rule (Corporations)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 167: Listen and Learn -- Direct and Derivative Actions (Corporations)
Amy Shepherd of Ballard Spahr on care & leadership as a legal CMO - Passle CMO Series Podcast
The Year Ahead: Litigation Hot Spots at a Glance
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 97: Listen and Learn -- The Reasonable Person Standard
Videocast: Asset management regulation in 2020 videocast series – Fiduciary investment advice: The patchwork emerges
Videocast: Asset management regulation in 2020 videocast series – The ADV season
The COVID-19 pandemic has taken an unthinkable toll on the United States, taking over 1.1 million American lives in the past three years.[1] In the pandemic's aftermath, some families of those taken by the disease and others...more
The state's Supreme Court has unanimously held that employers do not owe a duty of care under tort law to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to employees' household members. Although the Court, in Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks,...more
The Supreme Court of California recently held that the California Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) does not bar an employee’s spouse from bringing a negligence claim against the employer where the employee contracts COVID-19...more
Welcome to “PEO Pointers,” a regular series of quick-read alerts to keep PEOs and their client companies up to speed on the latest issues affecting the industry and what they can do to ensure compliance....more
Repeatedly, people would make these and other more colorful comments whenever I would describe my case pending before the California Supreme Court: Because a construction worker swore the only place he could have contracted...more
Last week, the California Supreme Court responded to a request from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to clarify whether an employer can be sued for negligence based on an employee who contracts COVID-19 at work and later...more
The California Supreme Court handed employers a win last week by making it clear that they do not have a duty to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to employees' household members. The court didn’t go so far as to say such claims...more
In a unanimous opinion, the California Supreme Court answered two questions posed to it by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, finding that an employer is not liable for a COVID-19 injury sustained by an employee’s household...more
Last week, the California Supreme Court agreed to decide two unique questions with far-reaching implications for employer liability: (1) may an employer be held liable to an employee’s spouse when an employee contracts...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, has certified two questions to the California Supreme Court about the liability of employers when an employee contracts COVID-19 at work and brings the virus home to a spouse. ...more
Jurisdictions are divided on the issue of whether there is a duty in take-home asbestos exposure cases, and while the majority of the states have not specifically addressed the issue in the asbestos exposure context, of those...more
If employees allege that they contracted COVID-19 as the result of a workplace exposure, state workers’ compensation laws may prevent them from pursuing a negligence claim against the company. What happens, however, when the...more
This 26th edition of Unprecedented, our weekly update on COVID-19-related litigation, sees us returning to now-familiar topics involving liability protection for businesses, wrongful death lawsuits (particularly those...more
The Rise of Take-Home or Secondary Exposure Asbestos Claims - Take-home asbestos claims are asserted by or on behalf of individuals who claim an asbestos-related injury arising from exposure to asbestos fibers through...more
Recently, a divided Supreme Court of Virginia, in a 4-3 decision, recognized an employer’s liability for “take home” exposure. In Quisenberry v. Huntington Ingalls Inc., 818 S.E.2d 805 (Va. 2018), the Supreme Court held that...more
In Ramsey v. Georgia Southern University Advanced Development Center, et al., C.A. No. N14C-01-287 ASB, Delaware’s Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Superior Court granting summary judgment to manufacturers of...more
In its recent decision, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant Reynolds Metal Company (“Reynolds”), holding that under the State’s laws an employer owed no duty of care to...more
The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations—contemporarily nicknamed “the Ocean State” is known for famous clear-broth Quahog clam chowder, The Breakers Mansion, the International Tennis Hall of Fame, and its...more
A California appellate court recently upheld the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in a secondary exposure asbestos case where Plaintiffs could offer no admissible evidence that decedent’s father worked around...more
A Pennsylvania District Court recently denied a defendant’s motion for summary judgment of the issue of duty, finding that that an employer’s take home duty may in certain situations extend to the girlfriend of a former...more
Expanding the scope of potential workplace-exposure liability, the New Jersey Supreme Court clarified that an employer may be liable for toxic exposures not just to the spouse of an employee, but potentially to people with...more
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently issued a decision that permitted a frequent visiting nonspouse to maintain a “take-home” exposure claim under New Jersey law. Although the Court was...more
A federal district court in Pennsylvania recently found that Accuratus Corporation (“Accuratus”), a ceramics manufacturer and supplier, could be liable under New Jersey law for chemical exposure injuries to the girlfriend and...more
On December 1, 2016, the Supreme Court of California held that the duty of employers and premises owners to exercise ordinary care in their use of asbestos in their businesses includes a duty to take reasonable care to...more