Case Updates

A recent decision by the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal exemplifies how exceptional facts can lead to problematic legal precedent. In a case involving a rear-end collision, the court departed from established insurance law principles to impose bad faith penalties on an insurer, despite the claim being brought by a third party and the underlying issue being one of first impression.

In a noteworthy ruling for school districts and educational facilities statewide, the Arizona Supreme Court held that Phoenix Union High School District No. 210 (the "District") did not owe a duty of care to a student who was struck by a vehicle while jaywalking across a public street on his way to school. The decision, Phoenix Union High School District No. 210 v. Hon. Joan M. Sinclair and Christopher Lucero, reaffirms the boundaries of a school's legal responsibility for student safety and narrows the application of the school-student special relationship to situations where the student is under the school's custody and control.

In a recent decision, the Illinois Appellate Court addressed a recurring point of contention in property insurance disputes. It tackled the issue of whether an insurer's policy defense, such as late notice, can block an insured's right to appraisal. The court's ruling provides important guidance for insurers and policyholders alike, reaffirming the appraisal process is independent from the resolution of certain coverage defenses. The opinion highlights the need for conscientious contract interpretation and strategic litigation planning when policy conditions and appraisal clauses intersect.

In a closely watched case with broad implications for public companies and cybersecurity disclosures, SolarWinds Corporation has reached an agreement in principle with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to settle a high-profile enforcement action alleging securities fraud tied to a major cyberattack. The proposed settlement, which still requires formal approval from the SEC, prompted a federal judge in New York to pause all proceedings while the final terms are reviewed and finalized.

In a widely- watched decision, Lillian Carranza v. City of Los Angeles, the court determined under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), a female LAPD Captain was entitled to $4 million in non-economic damages after a jury found she was subjected to a hostile work environment. The case centered on an AI generated deepfake nude image circulated within the department that was falsely represented as the Captain. Despite her high-ranking status and clear evidence of widespread dissemination among officers, the City of Los Angeles argued that Carranza had not experienced direct, face-to-face harassment and therefore, a hostile work environment was not present. However, the court's decision underscores that harassment under FEHA can be established through knowledge of inappropriate conduct and the creation of a toxic work environment, even when the actions are not aimed directly at the victim.

In a case of first impression, Thomas v. Corbyn Restaurant Development, Corp., the California Court of Appeal clarified how courts should allocate risk when a cybercriminal diverts settlement funds through a fraudulent scheme. The case arose from a $475,000 personal injury settlement. Before payment was made, an unknown third party, masquerading as plaintiff's counsel, sent spoofed emails to defense counsel containing fraudulent wire instructions. Relying on those emails, defense counsel wired the funds to the imposter, who then vanished with the money.

In a decision of first impression, the California Court of Appeal in RND Contractors, Inc. v. WRSE (2025) 112 Cal.App.5^th 697, clarified whether a co-defendant may oppose another defendant's motion for summary judgment without having first filed a cross-complaint. The case arose from the collapse of a high school gymnasium during construction, leading to negligence, wrongful death, and premises liability claims against the project participants. The court held that "any adverse party" may oppose another party's motion for summary judgment, even if the Plaintiff does not oppose the motion and there is no cross-complaint filed by the co-defendant opposing summary judgment.

Jurisdictional deadlines are unforgiving, and increasingly, the reliability of court service practices has become as critical as the rules themselves. In the Court of Appeal's recently published decision in Wing Inflatables, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, the court rejected an attempt to dismiss an appeal as untimely, finding that the clerk's electronic service via email of a file-endorsed order did not meet the strict requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1)(A). The decision clarified what it means for a document to "show" the date of service, consistent with rule 8.104(a)(1)(A), and reaffirms the "single document" requirement, as established by the California Supreme Court in Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Recently, there has been a significant increase in claims involving e-commerce websites, including unfair competition claims and claims involving the California Invasion of Privacy Act and other similar statutes.  In many instances, e-commerce companies try to compel such claims to arbitration through the arbitration provisions contained in the terms and conditions of their website.  However, a recent California Court of Appeal decision serves as a warning to businesses relying on online "sign-in wrap" agreements to impose arbitration clauses. In Cruz v. Tapestry, the court refused to enforce an arbitration provision contained in the retailer's Terms of Use, finding that the checkout page design did not adequately notify consumers that placing an order constituted agreement to those terms.

In Birdsall v. Helfet, the California Court of Appeal issued a significant decision for insurers and defense counsel confronting policy-limits settlement demands designed as potential "bad faith set-ups." The case arose from a serious rear-end collision on the Bay Bridge that left plaintiff Gary Birdsall permanently injured. Before suit was filed, Birdsall's attorney issued a time-limited policy-limits demand to the defendant's insurer.

In a decision highlighting the erosion of privity as a barrier to liability in construction-related claims, a California appellate court reversed summary judgment in favor of a soils engineering firm, holding the firm owed a duty of care despite the absence of a contractual relationship with the homeowner. The case involved allegations that the firm conducted only a cursory geotechnical inspection during a residential remodeling project. When the homeowner's property later suffered substantial damage due to subsidence, she sued for professional negligence and nuisance. Although the trial court initially found no duty absent a direct contract, the appellate court disagreed recognizing a duty of care regardless of privity

In Gutierrez v. Tostado (July 31, 2025), the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion clarifying that the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (MICRA) does not apply to claims arising from negligent ambulance driving, even when the vehicle is engaged in patient transport. The ruling draws a decisive distinction between professional negligence, governed by MICRA, and general negligence, which remains subject to the state's two-year statute of limitations.

In a noteworthy shift for Louisiana tort law, the state legislature has enacted a new rule that eliminates a commonly used presumption in personal injury litigation. House Bill No. 450, passed and was signed into law by the Governor Jeff Landry on May 28, 2025. The new law adds Article 306.1 to the Louisiana Code of Evidence and expressly prohibits courts from presuming that an act caused an illness or injury simply because a plaintiff lacked a prior history of that condition.

Can sharing a string of numbers, such as a Facebook User ID, violate federal privacy law? Two recent federal court decisions say no, offering critical guidance for digital media companies navigating the increasingly aggressive use of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) in the online world.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued a decision that reinforces the boundaries of the government's liability for design defects in federal construction contracts using the design-build bridging project delivery method. In Balfour Beatty Construction v. General Services Administration, the court partially overturned a ruling by the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA), finding that the bridging documents of the General Services Administration (GSA) contained design specifications that carried an implied warranty under the well-established Spearin doctrine.

In this negligence case, the California Court of Appeal, within the context of a summary judgment motion, addressed the application of alternative liability principles established in Summers v. Tice (1984) 33 Cal.2d 80. The plaintiff, Anthony Mitchell, was driving his Ferrari through Dana Point when the underside of the vehicle struck and dragged large rocks that had rolled onto the roadway from a nearby hillside. The incident caused extensive damage to the car and led to unspecified personal injuries.

In a decision with sweeping implications for tort liability and corporate defendants, the Texas Supreme Court has drawn a line in the sand on the limits of employer responsibility. In Werner v. Blake ___ S.W. 3d ___ (Tex. 2025)(Cause No. 23-0493), the court reversed a $100 million verdict, holding that an employer cannot be held liable, directly or indirectly, when its employee's actions are not a proximate cause of the alleged harm. The ruling reinforces long-standing principles of Texas tort law, clarifying that claims for negligent training, supervision, or hiring cannot stand on their own when the employee's conduct is not legally linked to the injury. This decision provides important guidance for companies facing high-stakes litigation based on policy failures, operational judgments, or indirect theories of liability, particularly in transportation, logistics, and other risk-intensive industries.

In a decision with wide-reaching implications for commercial contracts, the California Supreme Court in New England Country Foods LLC v. Van Law Food Products, Inc., reaffirmed strong public policy against insulating parties from liability for willful injury. The court held that Civil Code §1668 prohibits not only contractual clauses that entirely exempt a party from liability but also provisions that merely list the available damages for willful misconduct. In doing so, the Court disapproved earlier decisions that suggested some damage limitations for intentional torts might be enforceable. This ruling sends a clear message that parties cannot bargain away accountability for intentionally harmful conduct.

The decision in Broughton v. Marcy Ave. Owners LLC, 238 A.D.3d 536(1st Dept. 2025), offers a critical reminder to defense counsel that the seemingly ironclad protections of New York Labor Law §240(1) are not insurmountable. While the statute imposes absolute liability in many elevation-related construction accident cases, Broughton demonstrates how detailed factual rebuttals, especially those grounded in sound expert analysis, can raise triable issue of facts sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

In a closely watched case stemming from a restaurant fire caused by a departure from approved construction plans, the Colorado Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the strict boundaries of the economic loss rule. In MidCentury Insurance Co, v. Hive Construction, Inc., No. 23SC267 (April 21, 2025), the court concluded a negligence claim rooted in alleged willful and wanton misconduct was barred because the duty breached was defined entirely by contract. This ruling reinforces the primacy of contract remedies in commercial construction disputes and clarifies that even allegations of reckless misconduct do not automatically convert contract-based claims into actionable torts.

Alif v. California Fair Plan Association, challenges the scope of insurance coverage provided by the California FAIR Plan Association (CFP), the state's insurer of last resort. The plaintiff, Jay Aliff, alleged that CFP improperly limited coverage for smoke damage under its fire insurance policies, potentially leaving policyholders without adequate protection in the event of wildfire-related losses.

California has long stood at the forefront of innovation both in technology and increasingly, in the courtroom. Over the past decade, the state has become a magnet for so-called "nuclear verdicts," jury awards that exceed $10 million, often by staggering margins. These outsized awards, once considered anomalies, have become alarmingly routine in California, reshaping the legal and business landscapes across multiple industries.

In a pivotal decision interpreting the scope of coverage under a commercial general liability (CGL) policy, the Oregon Supreme Court in Twigg v. Admiral Insurance, clarified how courts should assess whether property damage arises from an "accident" when the underlying claim can be resolved by way of the contract in place rather than expanding it to a tort claim. The case centered on whether an insurer was obligated to cover damage caused by a subcontractor's faulty installation work, where the policy defined a covered "occurrence" as an "accident." Although the plaintiffs pursued only a breach of contract claim, they argued that the facts supported liability in tort, and therefore fell within the scope of the policy's coverage.

With the passage of House Bill 4127, which took effect on January 1, 2025, Oregon added a new layer of regulatory oversight for employers operating large warehouse distribution centers. The law imposes significant obligations around how productivity quotas are communicated and monitored, and it increases exposure to penalties for noncompliance. For employers, especially those leveraging performance metrics or algorithm-driven tracking systems, HB 4127 represents a meaningful shift in how warehouse labor must be managed.

In the wake of the devastating California wildfires, a noteworthy trend is unfolding that merits attention. In essence, this trend revolves around the treatment of insurance claims as a form of currency—an intricate gamble that varies significantly based on one’s position in the process.

In a move that could significantly change the allocation of damages in auto accident litigation, Louisiana's House Bill 431 restricts recovery in negligence cases by plaintiffs who are more than 50% at fault. HB 431 bars any plaintiff deemed 51% or more responsible for a motor vehicle accident from recovering any damages, even for the portion attributable to the fault of other parties.

In a significant move to address Colorado's housing affordability crisis, Governor Jared Polis recently signed House Bill 1272, now officially known as the Colorado American Dream Act, into law. This legislation aims to remove longstanding barriers that have discouraged residential developers from building affordable, middle-market housing- particularly townhomes, duplexes, and other multi-family formats.

The death of a litigant is a material fact that must be disclosed to the court and opposing counsel without delay. This is not only a matter of procedural necessity but also an ethical requirement. When plaintiff's counsel continues litigation without disclosing their client's death, the integrity of the entire judicial process is compromised. For defense counsel, discovering that a party has been deceased for weeks or months without any notice raises serious questions of due process, fairness, and professional responsibility.

This article examines the ethical violations associated with failing to disclose a plaintiff's death, the legal consequences for plaintiff's counsel, and the steps defense attorneys should take in response.

The transportation world was permanently altered with the introduction of the autonomous vehicle. They represent one of the most significant technological advancements in transportation of our time. Proponents tout the potential of AVs to transform the way we travel while reducing human error and improving road safety. However, as the technology evolves, the insurance industry faces novel challenges in assessing liability for accidents involving these vehicles. Age old auto insurance models, which focus primarily on human driver error, are being disrupted as the field of liability has expanded to include manufacturers, software developers, and other stakeholders involved in AV technology.

In a significant decision addressing the intersection of disability rights and constitutional protection, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Tsay JBR LLC v. United States District Court (Brooke) that under the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, a defendant hotel owner sued in federal district court for statutory damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act (the Unruh Act) is entitled to a jury trial on those damages.

A homebuyer's claims of fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation against the seller of a custom-built residence in Washington State were revived after the Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's summary judgment. At the center of the dispute was whether the seller failed to disclose a known and serious structural issue that was identified years earlier by engineers, but never corrected. The appellate court found sufficient evidence that the seller misled the buyer about the home's stability; despite having been warned that without further remediation, the property could face future foundation failure.

The transport of lithium batteries presents significant safety and liability risks for insurers. The batteries have been linked to fires, explosions, and other hazardous incidents, making them a major concern in cargo, aviation, and personal consumer use. As global regulations continue to evolve to mitigate these risks, insurance carriers must understand the regulatory framework, liability exposures, and risk management strategies necessary to provide effective coverage.

With its decision in Medical Marijuana v. Horn, No. 23-365, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 1369 at 11-12 (Apr. 2, 2025), the United States Supreme Court may have cracked open the door to a new wave of civil RICO litigation and it's one that plaintiffs' attorneys are almost certain to walk through. By holding that economic losses derivative of personal injury are not categorically excluded from RICO recovery, the Court has effectively loosened the reins on a statute originally crafted to combat organized crime. Now, as a result of the majority's expansive interpretation of "injury to business or property," plaintiffs may increasingly look to RICO as a vehicle for pursuing claims that were previously the domain of tort or employment law.

As businesses increasingly rely on chatbots and third-party tracking tools to enhance used experience on their websites, they also face heightened scrutiny under privacy laws. The recent case of Valenzuela v. Kroger outlines the challenges businesses may face when utilizing these technologies, particularly as it relates to claims alleging unauthorized data collection.

In the case of Lorenzo v. Calex Engineering, Inc., No. B331177 (March 28, 2025), the California Court of Appeal reinforced the scope of a developer's duty of care under California Civil Code section 1714. The court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in this wrongful death lawsuit arising from a fatal pedestrian accident involving a dump truck en route to an unauthorized construction staging area. The court applied the Rowland factors and determined that nearly all weighed against carving out an exception to the general duty of care. Further, the court held that proximate cause remained a triable issue, emphasizing the defendants' permit violations potentially increased the very risk the permitting process was designed to avoid. This decision underscores the legal responsibilities developers and contractors face when deviating from approved construction plans without proper authorization or oversight.

The question of whether to enforce an arbitration agreement or proceed with traditional litigation is far from perfunctory. Indeed, it's a strategic calculation that can significantly impact the outcome of a dispute. Whether advising corporate clients, representing individuals, or navigating complex commercial relationships, attorneys must weigh the unique advantages and limitations of each forum. Arbitration offers privacy, efficiency, and finality. In contrast, litigation provides broader discovery, appellate rights, and precedential development.

On April 21, 2025, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed into law two historic tort reform measures. Senate Bills 68 and 69, mark the first major tort reform since 2005 and the most comprehensive overhaul of the state's civil litigation framework in decades. These legislative developments reflect a deliberate and long-awaited shift in Georgia's legal climate, as policymakers respond to mounting concerns about disproportionate "nuclear verdicts," plaintiff-favored procedures, and rising litigation costs that have rippled through industries.

Florida's latest proposed condominium law, HB-913, introduces critical changes that will have a direct impact on condominium associations, unit owners, property managers and insurers. With new requirements for financial transparency, dispute resolution, and structural compliance, these updates aim to mitigate financial and legal risks while ensuring long-term property stability. However, the added regulatory burdens may pose challenges for associations and insurers, particularly regarding compliance with milestone inspections, reserve funding, and insurance eligibility. The bill passed both houses and will go into effect on July 1, 2025.

In Raab v. Nu Skin Enters., Inc., the Washington Supreme Court resolved a long-standing procedural question regarding the enforcement of contractual forum selection clauses. The case centered on whether a motion to dismiss for improper venue under CR 12(b)(3) is the correct mechanism for enforcing such clauses when they designate a mandatory non-Washington forum. In a decision that overrules Voicelink, Inc. v. Superior Court, 86 Wn. App.618,937 P.2d 1016 (1997), and aligns with federal precedent set by Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court, 571 U.S. 49 (2013), the court held that arguing improper venue under CR 12(b)(3) is not the appropriate procedural mechanism. The ruling provides critical guidance for litigants and courts handling contractual disputes involving forum selection clauses.

The recent tariff storm imposed by the U.S. government is predicted to have significant ramifications for the construction industry, particularly in sectors reliant on imported steel, aluminum, and lumber. These policy changes introduce new risks, contract disputes, and regulatory challenges that must be carefully navigated.

The New York Court of Appeals departed from long-standing precedent in its recent ruling in Flanders, allowing plaintiffs to pursue negligence claims for injury following a dog bite (Flanders v. Goodfellow, 2025 NY Slip Op 02261).

In recent years, Colorado has faced an escalating housing crisis, characterized by soaring prices and a shortage of affordable options. As the demand for housing continues to outpace supply, legislators are now focusing on the root cause of the housing crisis. One is the significant legal impediments that hinder the construction of much-needed residential developments that provide Colorado residents with affordable housing options. Central to this issue are the complexities surrounding construction defect claims, tenant protections, and energy code regulations. These legal frameworks, while designed to safeguard the rights of homeowners and tenants, have inadvertently contributed to the stagnation of housing growth, particularly in the realm of attached housing products such as condominiums and townhomes.

The 2025 Florida legislative session is in full swing, and a flurry of proposed bills is poised to reshape the insurance landscape in profound ways. From sweeping reforms in Senate Bill 554 to a host of new proposals targeting property insurance claims, litigation financing, and insurer practices, these measures could hit insurers operating in Florida with increased compliance costs, heightened scrutiny, and a more contentious claims and litigation environment. While many of these bills are pitched as consumer protection lifelines, the reality for insurers may be a tangle of unintended consequences—higher operational costs, liquidity risks, and a surge in disputes. At Wood Smith Henning & Berman, we’re tracking these proposals closely to keep you informed and prepared.

In a precedent-setting decision by California’s Third District Court of Appeal, the court clarified the reach of Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 998, California’s cost-shifting statute. (Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 385, as modified on denial of reh’g (May 9, 2023), review granted (Aug. 30, 2023) ¹.) The case is noteworthy because it clarifies that a plaintiff who does not accept a section 998 offer, and later obtains a less favorable result through a stipulated settlement, rather than through a formal “judgment,” may still invoke the cost-shifting provisions of section 998. The court reasoned that a contrary interpretation would undermine the purpose of CCP section 998, as it would improperly benefit a party who did not accept a section 998 offer that proved to be reasonable based on the amount that party ultimately accepted through a stipulated settlement.

The recent wildfires in Los Angeles serve as a stark reminder of the importance of adequate property and fire insurance, particularly for homeowners in high-risk areas. In the devastating aftermath, many homeowners are discovering that their insurance policies fall short of the actual costs required to rebuild. As a result, litigation is increasingly targeting insurance agents and brokers, alleging negligence for failing to recommend or secure sufficient coverage, otherwise known as underinsurance.

Recent California wildfires have heightened concerns about the scope of coverage for smoke damage under homeowners' insurance policies. In response, the California Department of Insurance issued Bulletin 2025-7 to guide insurers in processing smoke damage claims, emphasizing that while policy language remains paramount, each claim must be evaluated on its own merits. The guidance is particularly timely in light of the recent court decision in Gharibian v. Wawanesa Gen. Ins. Co., which addressed the issue of what constitutes direct physical damage as it relates to smoke.

In the recent case of Builders FirstSource-Southeast Group, LLC v. Palmetto Trim & Renovation, (No. 2021-001050), a South Carolina court examined the validity of certain indemnity provisions in contracts used by Builders FirstSource (BFS). The case centered on whether a contractor could require subcontractors to indemnify and defend it against claims allegedly stemming from its own negligence. Ultimately, the court affirmed that the contested contract provisions violated South Carolina Code § 32-2-10. This decision reinforces the state's stance against unfair risk-shifting in construction contracts and provides a clear precedent for future contract disputes in the industry.

The question of legal responsibility when violence erupts at events can prove complicated. In the recent case of Carmichael v. Café Sevilla, G063589 (January 7, 2025), the court examined the limits of negligence per se and the doctrine of ultra hazardous activities. After the event, Plaintiffs sued Café Sevilla of Riverside and its operators (hereinafter "Defendants"), arguing that the venue failed to provide adequate security and committed permit violations making it legally responsible for the repercussions of the shooting. Defendants moved for summary judgment and or summary adjudication (hereinafter "Motion") on the causes of action for negligence per se and ultrahazardous activity, which the Court ultimately granted and affirmed on appeal. The ruling in Defendants' favor in Carmichael highlights key limitations in holding businesses accountable for third-party violence, which is discussed further herein.

The case of MK v. Auburnfly, LLC raises complex questions about the enforceability of parental indemnification agreements in Michigan. These agreements, often presented as prerequisites for participation in recreational activities, have significant implications for public policy and the rights of minors. At the center of the dispute is whether such agreements are consistent with Michigan public policy, particularly when a parent is required to indemnify a recreational business for injuries sustained by their child due to the business's alleged negligence.

In a highly anticipated decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court in L.L. et al. v. Newell Brands, Inc. et al. (SC2105), held that Connecticut state law does not recognize a parent's claim for loss of filial consortium when a minor child suffers severe injuries due to a third party's alleged wrongdoing. The decision arose from a certified question submitted by the United Sates District Court for the District of Connecticut in a case where the plaintiff sought damages under the Connecticut Product Liability Act for injuries sustained by their child.

When the State condemns private property pursuant to eminent domain, it must pay the property’s owner “just compensation,”¹ and if the “property sought to be condemned constitutes only a part of a larger parcel,” the State must include severance damages in the “just compensation”² owed. Until recently, it was unclear whether the State had to pay severance damages if “the property sought to be condemned” was a nonpossessory property right in the land being condemned, such as an easement,³ rather than physical real property. However, in January, the Arizona Supreme Court clarified the issue in State of Arizona, et al. v. Foothills Reserve Master Owners Association, Inc.,⁴ holding the State must pay severance damages when it condemns appurtenant easements and certain other nonpossessory property rights.⁵

WSHB successfully secured a summary judgment in favor of its client in a high-stakes premises liability case in Florida. The plaintiff alleged that an optical illusion of a handrail on a sloped landscaped area caused a fall, resulting in over $400,000 in medical expenses and lasting physical limitations. Despite a $2.5 million demand from the plaintiff, WSHB's partners Ryan Schoeb and Zachary Williams, along with senior associate Kyle Woodford, prevailed by crafting a compelling legal argument that convinced the court to dismiss the case entirely.

The Washington Supreme Court recently addressed an important issue of first impression in the case of Springer v. Freedom Vans LLC, No.102566-1 (January 23, 2025). The case considered whether employers can prohibit low wage employees from working second jobs under a non-compete agreement. Central to the dispute was the proper interpretation of RCW 49.62.070, which memorializes the Washington legislature's commitment to promoting workplace mobility and protecting workers from overly restrictive non-compete agreements. The law recognizes that many individuals rely on multiple jobs to make ends meet. The legislative policy behind the law emphasizes that employers should not wield excessive control over an employee's ability to accept additional work. This decision marks a significant development in Washington employment law, affirming that employee protections against unreasonable restrictions will be enforced by the courts.

In a significant decision on personal injury damages, the California Court of Appeal, upheld a jury's award for future lost earnings and non-economic damages while reinforcing strict limitations on the recovery of past medical expenses. The case, David Yaffee v. Joseph Skeen, et al. (Filed 11/25/2024, C097746 and C097988), involved a dispute over the reasonable value of medical services, with the court holding that evidence suggesting a higher valuation than what was accepted by the hospital as full payment was improperly admitted. While the court affirmed substantial damages for the plaintiff's future economic and non-economic losses, it reversed the trial court's admission of excessive past medical expenses claims, underscoring the continuing impact of Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541, on California personal injury litigation.

In Elmi v. Related Mgmt., No. G062788 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2025), the California Court of Appeal clarified the scope of Code of Civil Procedure §998 regarding post-judgment costs and attorney fees. The case arose after the plaintiff, Cesar Elmi, rejected a 998 settlement offer from Related Management Company, LP (Related). The case proceeded to trial and was ultimately resolved for less than Related's offer. Under §998(c)(1), Elmi's award of pre-judgment costs and fees was limited to those incurred before Related's settlement offer. The trial court upheld this limitation, concluding that the offer exceeded the final case resolution amount.

In the recent decision of Stokes v. Forty Niners Stadium Mgmt., No. H050639 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2024) the California Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by the family of Mark Stokes, who died following an assault in the Levi's Stadium parking lot. The court concluded that there was no evidence to prove that the stadium's management and security companies’ alleged negligence was a substantial factor in failing to prevent the sudden and unforeseen attack. Plaintiffs argued that additional security measures could have either removed the assailant from the premises before the incident occurred or deterred the attack altogether. However, the court determined that these assertions were speculative and lacked substantial evidence to prove that the defendants' alleged negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries resulting from a third-party assault.

In a high-stakes case, Kim v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 252, review denied (Dec. 11, 2024), the court explored the boundaries of rideshare liability. The California Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Uber, concluding that the company was not responsible for the actions of a driver who struck a pedestrian while his Uber app was offline. The plaintiff argued that, despite the driver's offline status, he could have been positioning himself to take advantage of surge pricing by heading to a higher demand area – potentially blurring the line between personal and professional driving. However, both the trial and appellate courts found this theory too speculative, with undisputed evidence supporting that the driver was not acting for Uber at the time of the accident.

New Jersey Senate Bill 1475, titled the "Consumer Legal Funding Act," seeks to regulate the practice of consumer legal funding within the state. Consumer legal funding involves non-recourse transactions where companies provide funds to individuals with pending legal claims in exchange for a contingent right to a portion of any potential settlement or judgment.

As artificial intelligence continues to take hold across disciplines, its use in legal drafting has raised critical questions about accountability and reliability. In the recent case of Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, LLC, 2024 COA 128 (Colo. App. 2024), the court addressed this novel issue and highlighted the risk of relying on Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) tools for court filings. Al-Hamim's appeal brief contained fabricated legal citations, or "hallucinations," generated by a GAI tool. While the court ultimately decided not to impose sanctions, it issued a clear warning that future submissions containing fictitious citations could lead to severe consequences, signaling a turning point in how courts may address AI-related errors moving forward.

In an important development for California's construction industry, Assembly Bill 1034 (AB 1034) was signed into law last year, extending critical exemptions under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA). Originally set to expire on January 1, 2028, the exemption for construction industry employees working under certain collective bargaining agreements will now remain in effect until January 1, 2038. The extension provides long-term relief from the substantial litigation risks that PAGA presents to employers in the construction industry.

As California rolls out a plethora of new employment laws for 2025, employers face both opportunities and challenges in the new year. These legislative developments will impact workplace management and compliance strategies. For employers, understanding the implications of these laws is critical to minimizing risks and maintaining efficient business operations.

The U.S. securities industry operates under a dual regulatory framework involving both federal oversight and private self-regulatory organizations. In the late 1700's, securities traders began taking efforts to create self-policing stock markets in the United States by establishing rules to build public trust to maintain market integrity. Following the Great Depression, Congress passed a series of laws - including Securities Exchange Acts of 1933 & 1934 – regulating the securities industry. Today, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), a private corporation, is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as an authorized securities association under Section 15A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and plays a central role in regulating the securities industry, along with federal law, requiring Broker-Dealers and Registered Representatives to obtain FINRA membership to operate within the securities industry. This legal framework also subjects FINRA to oversight by the SEC, requiring it to enforce compliance with its own rules as well as federal securities laws.

In the case of Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Forest Ins. Center Agency, Inc., Auto-Own Ins. Co. v. Forest Ins. Ctr. Agency, No. 366123 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2024), the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed the intersection of professional liability insurance and negligence claims in the context of a catastrophic fire at a Michigan lumber business. The fire, which caused over $22 million in damages and losses, exposed alleged shortcomings in the business's commercial insurance coverage. This case highlights the ongoing duty of insurance agents to determine accurate coverage and the expansive nature of an insurer's duty to defend under claims-made policies.

In Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 478, the California Supreme Court reminds us of the state’s strict stance on the requirements for arbitration agreements, with particular insight into arbitration agreements in the employment context. By affirming that the arbitration agreement in question was unconscionable due to unfair terms, the court reinforced the importance of drafting balanced contract provisions, with particular consideration to the practical effect of language within arbitration agreements at the time of contract formation. Parties should carefully review their arbitration clauses to ensure they align with the principles discussed herein to reduce the risk of unenforceability due to potentially unconscionable provisions for which severance will not be deemed the appropriate remedy.

California courts will implement significant changes to the summary judgment process starting January 1, 2025. Assembly Bill (AB) 2049, signed into law earlier this year by Gavin Newsom, introduces the first major update to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c in twenty years. These updates affect motion timelines, successive motions, and briefing limitations requiring attorneys to adjust their strategies accordingly.

In this case of first impression, Live Life Bella Vita, LLC. V. Cruising Yachts, Inc., the court was asked to determine whether indemnity claims constitute separate claimants under the Limitation of Liability Act (otherwise known as the "Limitation Act"). The shipowners, Live Life Bella Vita, LLC, filed a limitation action in federal court seeking to cap their liability following a severe injury suffered by a maintenance diver, Eduardo Loaiza. The district court initially enjoined all related suits pursuant to the Limitation Act but later dissolved the injunction, allowing Loaiza to pursue his state court claims under the "single claimant" exception. However, when third-party indemnity and contribution claims were filed in the federal proceeding, the ship owners challenged the district court's decision, arguing that the presence of these third-party claims created a multiple claimant scenario under the Limitation Act.

As Governor Kathy Hochul prepares to make a pivotal decision regarding the contentious SB485B legislation on her desk, the potential ramifications for New York's consumers and the business community demand urgent attention. This bill, which has already been vetoed twice, seeks to significantly alter the landscape of wrongful death claims in the state. Its passage would not only exacerbate the already rising costs of liability insurance but also create a host of unintended consequences that could destabilize New York's legal and economic environments.

A recent First Circuit decision, Admiral Insurance Company v. Tocci Building Corporation, No.22-1462 (1st, Cir. 2024), clarified the limits of commercial general liability (CGL) coverage. The core issue revolved around whether Tocci's commercial general liability (CGL) policy required Admiral to defend against claims of property damage caused by subcontractor errors within a larger construction project. The court examined whether damage to non-defective parts of a project, resulting from faulty subcontractor work, qualified as "property damage" caused by an "occurrence" under Massachusetts law. Although recognizing evolving interpretations, the court upheld the district court's decision that Admiral was not obligated to defend or indemnify in this case.

As businesses increasingly rely on digital tools to connect with and understand their customers, the use of tracking software has become widespread. This technology enables companies to collect valuable data about user behavior, allowing for personalized marketing, better website performance, and optimized customer experiences. However, recent legal cases have raised important questions about the boundaries of tracking software and its intersection with privacy laws, such as the 1968 Wiretap Act. This article examines the recent case of Kathleen Vita v. New England Baptist Hosp., No. SJC-13542 (Mass. Oct. 24, 2024), which hinges on whether the hospitals' use of tracking software constitutes a violation of the Wiretap Act, particularly in terms of "communication" and "interception." The Wiretap Act's primary aim is to prevent unauthorized surveillance of personal conversations. Traditionally, courts have applied the Act narrowly, focusing on direct person-to-person exchanges. Applying the Act to the passive collection of user data on a website represents a novel and potentially far-reaching interpretation.

In a case that serves as a critical reminder of the power and limits of absolute privilege in litigation, the Illinois appellate court recently upheld the dismissal of defamation claims in a complex legal dispute over the administration of New Market Tax Credit programs. When accusations fly and reputations hang in the balance, the line between protected legal maneuvering and actionable defamation can be razor thin. This case illustrates the scope of absolute privilege, which can shield certain statements made in the course of litigation and explores when inflammatory statements and claims cross into illegal territory. By examining the consequences of reckless assertions and potential untruths in the course of legal proceedings, this ruling places the spotlight on the importance of absolute privilege as a potential defense and clarifies what is required to secure relief for defamatory litigation-fueled allegations.

Florida was once a hotbed for punitive damage awards, earning it a spot on the ATLA judicial hellhole report for several years. While tort reform has curbed many runaway verdicts, Florida remains a source of litigation concern. In the case of Orlando Health, Inc. v. Mohan, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed a decision granting punitive damages against a medical provider. Orlando Health, Inc. v. Mohan, 2024 WL 2484435 (Fla. 5th DCA May 24, 2024).The claim arose from a medical malpractice case arising out of a wrong site surgery. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to allow punitive damages for gross negligence but reversed the ruling regarding negligent credentialing, as the medical provider could not be held responsible on that front since its agent had been exonerated.

In a lesson on the importance of timely claims, the Appellant Division, Second Department in New York dismissed a homeowner's breach of contract suit over alleged construction defects in her basement remodel. The case, Hillaire v. Jose A. Torres, ___ N.Y.S.3d ___, 2024 WL 3281628 (2d Dep’t 2024), involved claims that the defendant botched a flooring installation back in 2015. Since the plaintiff filed their lawsuit nearly seven years after the work was completed- well past New York's six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract- the complaint was ruled too little, too late. The court's decision also made it clear that pandemic-era extensions to filing deadlines, while generous, did not save this claim.

In a complex intersection of civil and criminal law, the Texas Supreme Court recently addressed an interesting Fifth Amendment application to civil discovery proceedings. The case arose from a personal injury lawsuit filed by plaintiffs who sustained injuries when their vehicle was rear-ended by the defendant, Taylor Brock Peters. Following the accident, Peters faced not only civil liability but also criminal charges for two counts of intoxication assault with a motor vehicle. During discovery, the trial court ordered Peters to disclose the establishments that served him alcohol on the night of the accident. Peters refused, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Significant amendments to Florida's rules of civil procedure are on the horizon, taking effect on January 1, 2025. The amendments will impact a variety of areas, ranging from pretrial discovery and motion practice to judicial case management, and trial continuances. The changes issued by the Florida Supreme Court are designed to streamline civil case administration, better ensure timely judicial decisions, and generally improve efficiency in civil litigation. Notably, the rules introduce new standards for complex cases, deadlines for discovery, and changes to trial procedures. Attorneys and legal professionals practicing in Florida should familiarize themselves with these developments to navigate the new procedural landscape effectively. Although the amendments are intended to bring improvement, many of these changes are likely to be marred by early growing pains for practicing attorneys as well as the judges who are already under extreme pressure associated with court dockets already saturated from the influx of new case filings that were spurred by recent tort reform.

As evidenced by recent events as well as trends over the last decade, the risks of political turmoil and civil unrest are drastically increasing. These risks range from terrorist acts to protests and civil commotion to riots to looting and vandalism. Strikes, riots, and civil commotion (SRCC) threats, as they are characterized in insurance policies, not only pose a significant danger to the public but are also estimated to cost businesses millions of dollars every year. Although insurance carriers have traditionally included SRCC coverage as part of a standard policy, the increased frequency and severity of these risks have made this practice impracticable.

In the noteworthy case of Bonilla v. Verges Rome Architects, 382 So. 3d 62 (La. 2024), the Supreme Court of Louisiana addressed a key issue surrounding the limits of an architect's and contract administrator's contractual obligations in construction projects. The case stemmed from a serious injury sustained by a subcontractor's employee during a demolition project. The plaintiff filed a negligence claim against Verges Rome Architects ("VRA"), the architect and project's contract administrator, alleging that VRA owed a duty to ensure workplace safety. The Louisiana Supreme Court, however, determined that no such duty existed under the terms of the construction contract or Louisiana law regarding the interpretation of contracts.

Recent investigations into construction injury lawsuits in New York City have exposed alarming trends that raise serious questions about the integrity of the legal system. An unsettling pattern has emerged: a high concentration of injury claims from residents of specific apartment buildings and neighborhoods, all linked to a small number of law firms. This phenomenon coupled with powerful RICO actions brought by Tradesman and the ripple effects not only suggests the possibility of widespread fraud but also threatens the socio-economic stability of New York's legal and insurance landscape.

On June 3, 2024, Governor Jared Polis signed Colorado House Bill 24-1472 into law, marking a pivotal change in the state's legal framework around damages. This legislation significantly raises the limits on noneconomic damages, wrongful death claims, and medical malpractice awards, while also allowing siblings to bring wrongful death actions in certain cases. These updates carry substantial consequences for businesses and insurers operating in Colorado. This article explores the practical outcomes of these changes and how they may impact litigation and risk management.

Illinois recently passed SB2979, amending the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). This amendment narrows the scope of liability for businesses that collect biometric data, addressing concerns raised by the Illinois Supreme Court in Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc., 2023 IL 128004. In its opinion, the court had suggested legislative review of BIPA's potential for excessive damages, and SB2979 now aims to provide that clarity.