Law Brief®: David Pfeffer and Richard Schoenstein Discuss the Legal Implications of Infrastructure Collapses
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals recently reversed, in part, and affirmed, in part, a lower court decision regarding dismissal of contractual indemnity and implied indemnity claims. WW Consultants was the design...more
Key Takeaway: In Superior Oil Company, Inc. v. Labno-Fritchley, 207 N.E.3d 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s denial of summary judgment in a product liability case. The court...more
Murphy v. Columbus McKinnon Corp., 2022 WI 109 (Dec. 28, 2022), gave the Wisconsin Supreme Court its first opportunity to interpret Wis. Stat. § 895.047, part of the Wisconsin Legislature’s 2011 product liability statute....more
New York’s Appellate Division, First Department recently issued favorable dismissals to a sporting goods retailer and manufacturer in a case alleging issues with an elastic exercise band that injured a person’s right eye in a...more
Most of the Florida homes in the path of Hurricane Ian lack flood insurance, posing a major challenge to rebuilding efforts, new data show. In the counties whose residents were told to evacuate, just 18.5 percent of homes...more
In Maynard v. Snapchat Inc., No. S21G0555, 2022 Ga. LEXIS 68, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed and remanded an appellate court decision that dismissed the popular mobile app Snapchat from suit. Plaintiffs Wentworth and...more
On March 15, 2022, the Georgia Supreme Court revived a negligent design claim that had been brought against Snapchat, Inc. (n/k/a Snap, Inc.) involving Snap’s “Speed Filter.” As one of the few decisions across the country...more
In September 2021, the Washington Supreme Court issued its decision in Lake Hills Investments, LLC v. Rushforth Construction Co., Inc., 198 Wash.2d 209 (2021). This case is significant because it establishes a comparative...more
Foley Hoag LLP publishes this quarterly Update primarily concerning developments in product liability and related law from federal and state courts applicable to Massachusetts, but also featuring selected developments for New...more
It has been almost seven years since Tincher v. Omega Flex Inc. was decided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Tincher court left much unanswered but called on Pennsylvania’s lower courts, the legal academy and the bar to...more
Since the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014), parties proceeding in product liability cases in Pennsylvania often disagree about jury instructions. In Davis v....more
The Court’s decision in New Riegel Local School District Board of Education, et al. v. The Buehrer Group Architecture & Engineering, Inc., et al. interprets Ohio’s Statute of Repose, which generally requires certain...more
The onset of spring weather can mean only one thing: We are heading into prime season for road construction. If you haven’t seen the cones and Jersey barriers yet, you will soon. The new construction season brings with it...more
Most states have statutes of repose, which define the date certain for parties to assert any and all claims for construction and design related issues, and provide a final cut-off for liability with respect to a project. For...more
Meridian Eng’g Co. v. United States, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 7024 (Fed. Cir., Mar. 20, 2018) - Meridian Engineering Company (“Meridian”) was hired by the United States (“Government”) to construct flood control structures on...more
Harris Beach attorneys Judi Abbott Curry, Victoria A. Graffeo and Marina Plotkin prevailed on plaintiffs’ appeal to the Second Circuit of product liability failure to warn claims against Pioneer Surgical Technology, Inc. and...more
Frederick (Rick) Fern and the New York City Harris Beach Life Science Practice Group were successful in securing a summary judgment for medical device manufacturers Curlin Medical Inc., Moog Inc., and distributor B. Braun...more
Plaintiff lawyers’ continued search for damage theories to assert in claims arising from a data breach – or fear of a breach – received a potential setback this week when Chief Judge Michael Reagan of the United States...more
2017 was a significant year for Murtha Cullina’s appellate practice group. The firm was recognized by the Connecticut Law Tribune as its "Appellate Litigation Department of the Year." 2017 also marked two anniversary dates of...more
On January 31, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in a per curiam decision a district court decision denying in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment on claims brought under...more
The Appellate Practice Group of Murtha Cullina is regularly trusted to handle appeals by trial counsel within and outside the firm, as well as individuals and institutional clients. We are grateful for these opportunities and...more
Supreme Court Advance Release Opinions - SC19232 - Izzarelli v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. - Plaintiff obtained a judgment against a tobacco company upon a claim that it put in additives and manipulated the nicotine...more
Cases in which an appellate court holds that a state’s standard for punitive liability was not satisfied even though there was sufficient evidence to support liability for the underlying causes of action are regrettably rare....more
For years, Florida courts have been seesawing between two different doctrines to determine whether there is coverage under a property policy when two perils – one excluded and one included — combine to cause a loss. Two...more
In a case of first impression in the Third Circuit, the Court of Appeals held that unnamed, putative class members are not required to establish standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Rather, the Court held that...more