CM Report of Recent Decisions (2009v1)
2009 Volume 1
A summary of significant recent developments in the law focusing on substantive issues of litigation and featuring analysis and commentary on special points of interest.
Download this publication as a PDF
Articles in this report
WYETH v. LEVINE: FDA Approval of Drug Label Does Not Preempt State Law Failure to Warn Claims
The United States Supreme Court affirms a Vermont jury verdict against Wyeth, manufacturer of the drug Phenergan, holding that FDA approval of Wyeth's labeling of Phenergan does not preempt state-law failure to warn claims brought by a musician who developed gangrene and had to have her forearm amputated after receiving an improperly administered injection of Phenergan by the "IV-push" method. Wyeth v. Levine, --- U.S. ---, 129 S. Ct. 1187 (Mar. 4, 2009).
Early Notice to Adverse Parties in Subrogation
If you are a subrogation professional, you likely know that it is good practice to provide adverse parties with early notice of the loss. Here are some reasons why.
Handling and Resolving First-Party Claims With an Insured in Bankruptcy
An insurance policy is considered property of the debtor's bankruptcy estate. The proceeds of a first-party policy are also considered property of the bankruptcy estate. The proceeds paid to the insured for any covered claims will be considered property of the debtor's bankruptcy estate. Contains a Q&A section.
Soft Cost Coverage In a Troubled Economy
Soft Cost or Delay in Opening coverage has become increasingly important in these troubled economic times. Understanding the coverage, typical claims, and the factual information that would be helpful to an adjustment of a soft cost claim are of paramount importance.
The Stringfellow Acid Pits Burn Insurers on Concurrent Causation
In State of California v. Allstate Ins. Co., ___ Cal. Rptr. 3d __, 2009 WL 579415 (Cal. Mar. 9, 2009), the California Supreme Court recently reviewed the concurrent causation doctrine in the context of environmental liability insurance. In the environmental liability context, the court held the insurer must indemnify the policyholder for all property damage, where covered and uncovered events both contributed substantially to cause indivisible property damage for which the policyholder bears liability.
