Case Updates

The California Legislature rarely moves in lockstep on issues involving the plaintiffs' bar and personal injury litigation, but recent committee votes suggest something unusual is happening in Sacramento this term. Two bills aimed at attorney solicitation schemes and the impacts of outside financial influence sailed through committee with unanimous bipartisan support. The votes were not close, not contentious, and not particularly ideological. That alone makes them notable.

On February 2, 2026, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc. that, in part, provides important clarification on how courts should evaluate unconscionability challenges based on an arbitration agreement's legibility and formatting. Ultimately, the Court reaffirmed that small-print and formatting are exclusively issues related to procedural unconscionability because they do not affect the substance of the agreement's terms. The Court also reaffirmed the traditional sliding scale analysis for evaluating unconscionability challenges, including that courts must "closely scrutinize" the contract's terms (i.e., substantive conscionability) when a high degree of procedural unconscionability is found.

New York's 2026 fiscal year executive budget introduces a sweeping package of civil justice reforms aimed at curbing insurance fraud, reducing inflated motor vehicle claims, and addressing what policymakers characterize as systematic litigation abuse. Framed primarily as an affordability initiative to reduce rising auto insurance premiums, the proposals would, if enacted, significantly reshape liability exposure, damages recovery, and trial procedure in automobile litigation statewide.

In 1046 Munras Properties. L.P. v. Kabod Coffee, a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals addressed a question not previously resolved in a published Colorado decision: whether a prevailing party may the attorney fees it incurred to secure and enforce the fee award itself (commonly called "fees on fees.") The division concluded that the contract at issue, read as a whole, entitled the prevailing landlord to seek fee on fees and the district court erred in denying them based on an overly narrow reading of the contract.

The Supreme Court of Nevada's decision in North River Insurance Company v. James River Insurance Company resolves a significant and unsettled question in Nevada insurance law. The court addressed whether an excess insurer may pursue an equitable subrogation claim against a primary insurer when the underlying litigation settles within the combined policy limits of both insurers. Answering a certified question from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court held that such claims are permitted under Nevada law when the insured would have suffered loss absent the excess insurer's payment.

In Yoder v. McCarthy Construction, Inc. (Pa. Oct. 23, 2025), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reaffirmed two foundational workers' compensation doctrines with major consequences for construction-site injury litigation. First, the Court refused to overrule Fonner v. Shandon, Inc. 724 A.2d 903 (Pa. 1999) holding that a general contractor's statutory employer tort immunity does not depend on whether the contractor actually paid workers' compensation benefits to the injured subcontractor employee. Second, the Court refused to overrule LeFlar v. Guld Creek Industrial Park #2, 515 A.2d 875 (Pa. 1986), again treating statutory employer immunity as a subject-matter jurisdiction issue that cannot be waived by late pleading.    

Law firms across the country are facing a renewed and increasingly sophisticated wave of fraudulent email and wire transfer scams targeting attorneys engaged in settlement negotiations, real estate transactions, and other matters involving the transfer of funds. These schemes- commonly referred to as Business Email Compromise (BEC) scams, pose significant financial, reputational, and professional liability risks to legal professionals and their clients.

California courts have long emphasized that civil litigation is not meant to reward surprise. The recent decision in McDonald v. Zargaryan (2025) 177 Cal.App.5th 344 offers a clear and forceful reminder that expert disclosure rules are not procedural niceties but structural safeguards designed to protect fairness, efficiency, and the integrity of the trial process.

Facial recognition and biometric surveillance are becoming normalized in the retail environment, not accompanied by broad public debate but through quiet deployment in everyday spaces like grocery stores. A recent controversy involving biometric-collection signage at Wegmans Grocery Stores illustrates how quickly routine loss-prevention practices can trigger heightened legal exposure. Unlike many AI accountability disputes, biometric surveillance is already governed by a growing patchwork of state and local laws, and retailers implementing these tools may face a risk profile that includes statutory damages, regulatory enforcement, and consumer class actions, often regardless of whether any shopper can prove downstream harm.

A recent California appellate decision involving two children who fell from a second-story bedroom window offers an important clarification for property owners, managers, and counsel who routinely deal with renovations in older buildings. In Jimenez v. Hayes Apartment Homes, the court drew a firm distinction between general negligence and negligence per se. In doing so, it held that the Building Code's "original materials" exemption does not apply to complete window replacements, and that modern window-safety requirements continue to apply when older buildings undergo alterations.

New York's civil practice rules are entering a new era of procedural efficiency, with two amendments that will impact everyday litigation strategy in state court. First, the Legislature enacted the Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (AVOID) Act, which significantly modifies CPLR 1007 by imposing strict time limits on third-party practice. Governor Hochul signed the Act on December 19, 2025, and the changes become effective on April 18, 2026.

In a certified published opinion with significant implications for premises liability, residential inspections, and the scope of the Privette doctrine, the California Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of a homeowner whose property was the site of a work-related injury to an independent contractor's employee. Andrews v. Wagner confirms that homeowners may qualify as "hirers" for Privette purposes even when an inspection is arranged through an insurance carrier, and it reinforces the narrow application of the Kinsman concealed-hazard exception where the alleged danger is open, obvious, and within the scope of the contractor's work.

In an significant opinion, the California Court of Appeal reaffirmed a principle increasingly decisive in transportation-related litigation. When high-quality video footage tells a clear, objective story, courts may rely on it to resolve disputed narratives and dispose of negligence claims as a matter of law. In Agustin v. Golden Empire Transit District (No. F088135 (Cal. Ct. App., Nov. 26, 2025), the court affirmed summary judgment for a public transit agency and its driver after a long-time rider fell while standing on a moving bus. Despite allegations of negligence, the video showed no evidence of wrongdoing. Instead, it showed a passenger standing unbraced while holding a bag and a cell phone during an ordinary turn. For transit operators, public entities, and insurers, the case underscores the power of onboard camera evidence and clarifies the boundaries of common carrier liability.

Wrongful death litigation involving generative AI is no longer hypothetical. A new lawsuit arising from the death of an Connecticut woman, tests whether existing tort doctrines can be extended to alleged harmed caused not by a human advisor or professional, but by an AI system built to stimulate conversation, reinforce user engagement, and respond convincingly even in sensitive contexts. This case highlights the central legal question courts are increasingly being asked to answer: Can an AI developer be held responsible under negligence or product liability frameworks when their product is alleged to foreseeably amplify delusion, dependency, or paranoia?

Illinois rarely makes quiet changes to its legal landscape. When the state acts, it tends to do so decisively, often with an eye toward being out in front of national trends. The laws taking effect in 2026 are no exception. Taken together, they tell a clear story about what lawmakers are paying attention to right now. Artificial intelligence creeping into everyday decision-making, growing frustration with property misuse, a renewed focus on environmental restoration, and continued expansion of worker and consumer protections.

Oregon's 2026 laws read less like a routine legislative update and more like a snapshot of a state actively reshaping the rules around work, technology, and consumer protection. From artificial intelligence and digital privacy to wage liability, healthcare coverage, and online commerce, lawmakers have taken a clear position on issues that are no longer theoretical. The result is a set of statutes that reach deeply into how businesses operate, how data is handled, and how individuals are protected in an a increasingly digital economy.

In Semaho v. AMCO Insurance Company, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado addressed a familiar but consequential problem in commercial property insurance. Namely, how percentage deductibles apply when wind damages property that does not fit neatly into traditional "building" or "personal property" categories.

In the digital age, the line between private thought and public record has blurred. As artificial intelligence tools, such as ChatGPT, become embedded in everyday life, new vulnerabilities emerge in the legal and investigative landscape. What may feel like a solitary, confidential chat is rarely private. For instance, in a recent case surrounding the California Pacific Palisades wildfire investigation, one piece of evidence involved AI-generated outputs and prompts entered into ChatGPT. Officials used digital evidence including images generated on ChatGPT to connect the accused to the crime.^[i] While the particulars of that case remain under seal, the takeaway is ChatGPT searches and results can eventually become part of the record. This article will examine this question from a legal-risk perspective and discuss the vulnerabilities of chats entered into AI platforms. Users must recognize that AI conversations may not remain private. They may be logged, retrievable, and producible in litigation, regulatory investigation, or criminal prosecution.

Child death cases occupy a unique and complicated space in civil litigation. They combine profound emotional weight with complex medical and difficult factual questions, often against the backdrop of jurors' instinctive belief that someone must be held responsible. In that environment, even a strong defense can unravel quickly, damages can inflate rapidly, and moral judgment can eclipse legal standards.

Arbitration remains the preferred mechanism for many employers and businesses to resolve workplace and consumer disputes. However, California legislation, namely Code of Civil Procedure, section 1281.98, and recent cases construing it strictly, introduced procedural hurdles that jeopardized the enforcement of arbitration agreements. In Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court clarified the standards that apply to this situation, addressing whether (1) the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA, 9 U.S.C., § 1, et. seq,) preempts Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98, a provision of the California Arbitration Act (CAA, Code Civ. Proc., § 1280 et. seq.) that governs the timely payment of arbitration fees in employment and consumer disputes; (2) section 1281.98 should be strictly construed as effectuating the waiver of a party’s right to enforce arbitration if payment for the same is even one day late; and (3) section 1281.98 is applicable when an arbitration agreement unambiguously calls for enforcement of the same under the FAA.  

In recent years, New York courts and insurers have confronted a troubling rise in suspicious personal-injury claims tied to the construction industry. Patterns have emerged revealing the same lawyers, the same doctors, the same "witnesses," and, increasingly, the same litigation funders appearing across clusters of questionable accidents. These cases often follow a script. They involve rapid referrals to preferred medical providers, identical fact patterns, outsized treatment plans, and quick demands for high-value settlements. As insurers and defendants push back, courts are being asked to decide how far discovery may reach when the record suggests an orchestrated effort to manufacture claims for financial gain.

The case of Moss & Associates, LLC v. Daystar Peterson and Brickell Heights East Condominium Association, Inc. represents a quiet but significant correction in Florida construction law litigation. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of certiorari and quashed a trial court order that denied a contractor's motion to stay litigation under Chapter 558, Florida Statutes.

California's discovery statutes serve several foundational goals within civil litigation. They promote fair resolution of disputes, facilitate the efficient exchange of information, and ensure that parties comply with procedural obligations designed to narrow issues and avoid unnecessary gamesmanship. Discovery sanctions, and, more specifically, fee-shifting, operate within this framework as tools that encourage compliance, deter misuse, and protect the integrity of the judicial process. Fee-shifting serves the additional function of placing the financial burden caused by discovery violations on the party and/or counsel responsible for the misconduct, instead of the innocent litigant.

In Bean v. City of Thousand Oaks, a decision with meaningful implications for public entities, insurers, and defense counsel, the California Court of Appeal held that a codefendant with an adverse interest may oppose another defendant's motion for summary judgment, even if it has not filed a cross-complaint. The court reaffirmed that standing turns on adverse interests, not pleading posture. Despite correcting the trial court's procedural error, the Court of Appeal ultimately affirmed the summary judgment for the adjacent homeowner because no triable issue of fact existed regarding her control over the sidewalk or the parkway tree that allegedly caused the plaintiff to trip and fall.

Construction projects often involve intricate designs, multiple stakeholders, and complex performance obligations. When problems surface years after completion, parties must navigate a difficult landscape that blends contract law, tort doctrines, and statutory deadlines. A recent decision from the Fourth Court of Appeals of Texas provides meaningful guidance on how courts will evaluate latent construction defect claims, the applicability of the discovery rule, and the limits of the economic loss doctrine. In Morningside Ministries v. Koontz McCombs Construction, Ltd., the court reversed summary judgment entered in favor of the general contractor and project manager, reviving the owner's claims and offering important lessons for owners, contractors, and insurers facing construction defect disputes.

Construction defect litigation often turns on questions of timing as much as on the substance of alleged deficiencies. In Pennsylvania, the statute of repose governing construction projects provides builders and contractors with a powerful defense that can extinguish claims long before they are filed. The recent decision in Aloia v. Diament Building Corp., underscores the judiciary's commitment to enforcing the statutory bar, even in cases framed under consumer protection laws or premised upon allegations of building code violations.

California's insurance market is in free fall. Following the catastrophic Altadena and Pacific Palisades fires and a string of other climate-driven disasters, families and businesses are finding themselves underinsured, uninsured, or entangled in endless disputes with their carriers over smoke damage, contents coverage, and basic claims processing. The California FAIR Plan Association (FAIR Plan), once a "last resort" backstop, is rapidly becoming the default option, even though its coverage limits and terms are deeply inadequate for the realities of California's housing stock, commercial markets, and wildfire risks. 

California is on the cusp of a significant shift in the landscape of survival litigation. For decades, Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34 barred recovery of a decedent's pain, suffering, or disfigurement in survival actions, limiting those claims to economic damages the decedent sustained before death. This framework placed California among the minority of jurisdictions that prohibited noneconomic survival damages.

Beginning January 1, 2026, Oregon will enter a new era of construction defect law. House Bill 3746, touted as "major construction reform," marks one of the most significant shifts in the state's approach to condominium and planned community liability in decades.

Mediation has become a mainstay of modern litigation. Courts encourage it, insurers rely on it, and parties treat it as a practical path to resolution without the staggering cost of trial. Yet despite its ubiquity, many lawyers and claims professionals still approach mediation as an informal discussion, a chance to see where things stand, or worse, a fishing expedition.

The Supreme Court of Texas has sharply limited when foreign manufacturers can be sued in the state, ruling that an Austrian aircraft-engine maker cannot be hauled into Texas courts over a crash at a local airport. The opinion reinforces Texas' strict application of the "stream-of-commerce-plus" test and underscores that merely foreseeing a product's eventual arrival in Texas is not enough to establish specific personal jurisdiction.

In a cautionary decision that marks California's first published opinion on the misuse of generative artificial intelligence in legal filings, the Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for defendants in a routine employment dispute but used the case to address an extraordinary issue. In Noland v. Land of the Free, LP, the court discovered that nearly every quoted authority in the plaintiff's appellate briefs were fabricated. Entire passages were falsely attributed to published opinions, many cited cases did not discuss the referenced issues, and several authorities did not exist at all. According to the opinion, plaintiff's counsel relied on generative AI tools to draft briefs without verifying citations or reading the underlying cases.

Effective July 1, 2025, Florida Statute §553.837 imposes a mandatory one-year warranty on all newly constructed residential homes, including single-family dwellings, duplexes, triplexes, quadruplexes, and modular or factory-built units that have never previously been occupied. This statutory requirement establishes a robust baseline of guarantees for homeowners but also introduces new exposures for builders that typical Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies may not fully address.

Courts have long recognized that sanctions may be imposed when a party destroys evidence relevant to pending claims. The Colorado Supreme Court's decision in Keaten v. Terra Management Group, LLC clarifies a critical question for litigants, property managers, and counsel alike: At what point does the duty to preserve evidence arise before a lawsuit is filed? The ruling delineates an objective, fact-specific standard for determining when litigation is "reasonably foreseeable." The Court's opinion provides both clarity and caution, reinforcing that the preservation obligation extends beyond pending lawsuits to situations where litigation is likely or imminent.

In a significant victory for the defense, Wood Smith Henning & Berman partner Kate Adams, successfully obtained summary judgment in favor of the defendant insured following oral argument before the Connecticut Superior Court. The court's ruling in the insured's favor brought a decisive end to a high-exposure premises liability action.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is elated to announce a favorable result secured by Senior Counsel Megan Michaud and Partner Kate Adams in a long-running case that was pending before the Office of Public Hearings (OPH) at the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO).

The Connecticut Supreme Court recently addressed whether insurance brokers have a duty to notify clients of an insurer's nonrenewal decision. In Deer v. National General Ins. Co., homeowners, whose policy lapsed before their home was destroyed by a fire, sought to hold their longtime brokers liable for failing to alert them to the insurer's communication regarding nonrenewal. The Court rejected the claim, reaffirming that a broker's duty ordinarily ends once the requested policy is procured, and that liability arises only if the broker affirmatively undertakes to assist with renewals.

On August 1, 2025, a Miami jury rendered a verdict that immediately reverberated through the products liability community. In Benavides v. Tesla, jurors awarded more than $240 million in damages, including $200 million in punitive damages, after finding Tesla partially responsible for a fatal 2019 motor vehicle accident involving its Autopilot system. The verdict was the first in the United States to hold Tesla liable in a wrongful death action tied directly to Tesla's Autopilot's operation, and it arrived after years of litigation and intense public scrutiny over advanced driver-assist systems. Tesla has vowed to appeal, and post-trial motions will almost certainly test the size and constitutionality of the punitive damages award.

In Kronfeld v. Malone, the New Jersey Appellate Division reaffirmed the judiciary's firm stance on discovery management and procedural compliance. The plaintiff, Natalia Kronfeld, pursued a series of legal malpractice actions – first against her former divorce attorneys, and later against the attorney who represented her in the malpractice suit. After nearly 1,300 days of discovery and eight separate motions for extensions, the trial court drew a line by denying further discovery and ultimately granting summary judgment to the defense.

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.