On April 16, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), in Trustees of Boston University vs. Clough, Harbour & Associates LLP, held that contractual indemnification claims, arising from negligence, were not precluded by...more
The justifiable reliance element has been described as a “fundamental precept” and a “venerable rule”. The requirement is one of the five elements of a fraud cause of action: (1) a misrepresentation or a material omission of...more
This case is an eye-opener for every policyholder as it explains the importance of treating an insurance policy as a specialized contract. Insurance contracts have special features, but they are still contracts to which the...more
Bradley scored a significant victory in the Tennessee Supreme Court on November 14, 2024. In a long-awaited decision, the Tennessee Supreme Court clarified a long-standing inconsistency in Tennessee law with its opinion in...more
A couple of months ago, we examined NW Media Holdings Corp. v. IBT Media Inc., 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 30875(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Mar. 22, 2023) (here), a case in which a lower court addressed the question whether the...more
The discovery rule applies to latent injuries, such that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the plaintiff knows of or should have known of the injury. In Western World Ins. Group v. KC Welding, LLC, No....more
“A” brings an action against “B”. The causes of action asserted against “B” are all timely for statute of limitations purposes. Following discovery, “A” learns that “C” played a material role in the facts and...more
A recent Second Circuit preemption decision illustrates the importance of a clear-eyed approach to medical device preemption issues. In Glover v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 6 F.4th 229 (2d Cir. 2021), the district court...more
MEENAXI ENTERPRISE, INC. v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY - Before Dyk, Reyna, and Stoll. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: To maintain a statutory cause of action under the Lanham Act for activities...more
A recent Utah Court of Appeals opinion, HKS Architects, Inc. v. MSM Enterprises Ltd. 2021 UT App. 70, puts contractors and designers on notice that they need to pay attention to receivables and excuses for non-payment. The...more
FOREWORD - On behalf of the new and expanding Goodwin London litigation team I am delighted to welcome you to our first ever ‘Litigation Insights’: a series of quarterly updates on important and interesting developments...more
This week, the Court knocks down a party’s argument that it was “de facto debarred” from exporting activities under the Arms Export Control Act, and explains what exactly triggers the statute of limitations in Wiretap Act...more
Brillman v. New England Guaranty Ins. Co., 2020 VT 16 (Feb. 21, 2020) - In this insurance coverage decision, the Vermont Supreme Court determined that the “date of loss,” which starts the clock running on the one-year...more
Plaintiff Gene Myers (“Plaintiff”), a physician, made a claim for individual disability insurance (IDI) benefits under an individual disability policy arising from low back injury caused by wearing a heavy leaded gown worn...more
McNellis-Wallace v. Hoffman, et. al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket No. A-1488-19T1 - Brief Summary - A New Jersey appellate court held that a defendant in a malpractice case could not maintain a...more
In 2018, actress Ashley Judd (“Judd”) sued producer Harvey Weinstein (“Weinstein”) for sexual harassment, defamation, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair competition. Judd alleges that...more
On December 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Intel Corp. Inv. Policy Comm. v. Sulyma, 139 S. Ct. 2692 (2019). The question presented is whether the three year limitations period in 29 U.S.C. § 1113(2),...more
Carroll v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 41 Cal. App. 5th 805, 254 Cal. Rptr. 3d 519 (2019) - Summary: Each alleged reduction of monthly disability retirement benefit payments for discriminatory reasons was continuing violation...more
Not so long ago, federal courts began to hold that a federal statute of limitations did not run until the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of his or her claim. This is commonly called the “discovery rule.” The...more
In Melton v. Waddell, a sister sued her brother for breach of fiduciary duty for misapplying funds in a joint account and not properly allocating revenues from real estate that they owned as tenants in common. No....more
On October 31, 2019, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided Yanakos v. UPMC, et al. and declared the seven-year statute of repose under the Pennsylvania Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (“MCARE”) Act...more
In Yanakos v. UPMC, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, struck down the seven-year statute of repose in the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act as unconstitutional. MCARE’s statute of...more
In a recent 9-0 decision issued by the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS), the Court has set to rest the applicable statutes of limitations for claims brought under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §3731(b) (FCA). Cochise...more
In Rotkiske v. Klemm, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to do what many plaintiffs’ attorneys have dreamed of for years: effectively expand the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations by applying the “discovery rule” to...more
The FDCPA requires that any lawsuit must be brought, if at all, “within one year from the date on which the violation” of the act occurs. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). The US Supreme Court will hear argument this month in Rotkiske v....more