State-wide Certification Against Credit Reporting Agency for the Unauthorized Sale of Personal Information Affirmed.

In What's New in Class Action Law?, What's New in the Courts by gravierhouseLeave a Comment

Plaintiffs brought suit for Louisiana residents whose credit information was sold by TransUnion to third parties in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681, et seq, pursuant to the enforcement provisions of Louisiana Revised Statute 9:3571.1(G)(3). The court of appeal rejected TransUnion’s arguments that the suit was effectively preempted by parallel litigation in the Federal Courts. The …

Wisconsin Supreme Court holds that lead paint manufacturers can be liable under a “risk-contribution” theory.

In What's New in Product Liability Law?, What's New in the Courts by gravierhouseLeave a Comment

The court first rejected the manufacturers’ curious argument that (because the plaintiffs allegedly had an “adequate remedy” against their landlords) the Constitution barred the plaintiffs’ claim against them, and then concluded that lead paint compounds were factually similar enough to DES that the market-share-type “risk-contribution” approach adopted in Collins v. Eli Lilly, 342 N.W.2d 37 (Wis. 1984), could be utilized …

Ohio appellate court certifies class of policyholders.

In What's New in Class Action Law?, What's New in the Courts by gravierhouseLeave a Comment

A class action was filed against Security Union Title Insurance Company alleging a systematic and illegal overcharge in premiums for title insurance policies in residential refinancing transactions. The trial court found that common issues did not predominate, as it would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis that plaintiff or his or her agent provided a copy of the …

Louisiana Court of Appeal Holds that Recall Notice is Admissible in Design Defect Case.

In What's New in Product Liability Law?, What's New in the Courts by gravierhouseLeave a Comment

A used Ford caught on fire, and the insurer was subrogated to the rights of the car-owner. State Farm, as subrogree, filed an action against Ford under the LPLA. The trial court found for the plaintiff, and the First Circuit affirmed. “If the service recall bulletin had dealt with a different model year or involved a different type of speed …

Sanctioned Morgan Stanley hit with $1.45 Billion verdict.

In What's New in E-Discovery and Spoliation?, What's New in the Courts by gravierhouseLeave a Comment

Florida Circuit Court Judge Elizabeth Maass had entered summary judgment in favor of Ronald Perelman in his fraud case against Morgan Stanley as a sanction for refusing to turn over documents, including large numbers of e-mails. See Gasparino, “Time to Invest in Some More E-Storage Space” Newsweek, May 30, 2005, p.12; “All That Missing E-Mail … It’s Baaack” New York …

Florida Court of Appeal rules that pharmacists can be liable for the negligent filling of prescriptions.

In What's New in Product Liability Law?, What's New in the Courts by gravierhouseLeave a Comment

Despite the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling in McLoed v. W.S. Morrell that a retail druggist who fills a lawful prescription of a medical doctor with an unadulterated compound cannot be held strictly liable for breach of implied warranty, an intermediate appellate court held, on June 1, 2005, that a pharmacist could be held liable for his or her negligence, such …

Supreme Court reverses Arthur Andersen’s obstruction of justice conviction; troubling dicta regarding document destruction policies.

In What's New in E-Discovery and Spoliation?, What's New in the Courts by gravierhouseLeave a Comment

Having advised its Enron team to comply with its document “retention” policy in the face of Government and other investigation, Arthur Andersen was convicted of obstruction of justice, under 18 U.S.C. 1512(b)(2), which makes it unlawful to knowingly use intimidation or physical force, threaten, or corruptly persuade another person withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from …

Tenth Circuit joins Third, Eighth and Ninth Circuits that authority or control over plan assets does not have to be “discretionary”.

In What's New in ERISA Litigation?, What's New in the Courts by gravierhouseLeave a Comment

On May 19, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that accountants who received plan contributions, deposited them into their business account, and then wrote checks for the amount of the contribution on behalf of the plan were fiduciaries. Rejecting the argument that these responsibilities were “ministerial”, the court re-affirmed the distinction in the ERISA statute …

The Sixth Circuit finds that breach of fiduciary duty claims for improper processing emergency-medical-treatment claims are excused from the exhaustion requirement under the futility exception.

In What's New in ERISA Litigation?, What's New in the Courts by gravierhouseLeave a Comment

“Although it is well settled that ERISA plan beneficiaries must exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing a suit for recovery on an individual claim, we have not yet decided whether a beneficiary must exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing claims based on statutory rights, such as Sections 1104 and 1105 fiduciary-duty claims. Instead, we have resolved such cases on the grounds …