Florida’s Supreme Court recently adopted the federal summary judgment standard. Since then, lawyers and the trial and appellate courts have grappled with the twists and turns every major rule change presents.
Prior to adoption of the new rule, summary judgment orders were reviewed de novo, and the trial court’s reasoning was irrelevant on appellate review.
Recently, Florida’s Fourth District...Read More
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has accepted for review the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s opinion in Sullivan v. Werner Company, 253 A. 3d 730 (2021), which affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of the defendant’s evidence that its product was designed in compliance with industry standards and OSHA regulations. The defendants will argue that Pennsylvania’s common law and evidentiary decisions...Read More
In January, 2022, in Merck v. ACE American Insurance Company, a New Jersey Superior Court Law Division Judge ruled that a cyberattack, for insurance coverage purposes, cannot simply be excluded based on a wartime exclusion. What does it mean for insurance companies?
A cyberattack is an unfortunate side effect of the advances in technology and it is clear that this form of attack is not going...Read More
Finally, some clarity. A unanimous New York high court decided this week to uphold the Suitability and Best Interests in Life Insurance and Annuity Transactions Amendment to Insurance Regulation 187. The Department of Financial Services (DFS) in 2018 added this amendment because of concerns that the increasing complexity involved in purchasing annuities and life insurance made consumers more...Read More
Just because a product was purchased almost 20 years ago, does not get manufacturers off the hook. In Smith v. Spectrum Brands, Inc., 2022 WL 3457822 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 17, 2022), plaintiffs brought a strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty claim against the manufacturer and seller of a six-gallon aquarium tank that caused a fire and damaged the plaintiffs’ home.
In 2002 or 2003,...Read More
Effective immediately, “the following sentence is added to rules 1.530(a) and 12.530(a): To preserve for appeal a challenge to the sufficiency of a trial court’s findings in the final judgment, a party must raise that issue in a motion for rehearing under this rule.” In Re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530 and Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.530, 47 Fla. L. Weekly S...Read More
In Dukich v. Ikea US Retail LLC, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that a defendant cannot be liable for consumer fraud or negligence in connection with a product recall because none of the plaintiffs established any false or misleading statement from defendant.
In 2016 and 2017 Ikea issued two separate recalls on its “MALM” line of dressers when it became aware of deaths and injuries...Read More
Yet another court in New York has ruled against an insured’s lawsuit for breach of contract against the insurer for not covering business losses as a result of the pandemic. In Spirt Airlines v. American Home Assurance Company, Justice Reed of the New York State Supreme Court, New York County, held, as scores of other state and federal courts have held nationwide, that coverage under the...Read More
In Ruisech v. Structure Tone Inc., plaintiff was working at a construction site attempting to install a heavy glass divider when he stepped forward to place the glass into the track and stepped on “minute” pebble near the track. His foot slipped forward but he did not fall, yet plaintiff claimed he sustained injuries.
Plaintiff admitted that his co-workers created the debris that was the...Read More
In Garcia v. Security First Ins. Co., 5D21-1456, 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 6197, 2022 WL 4111171 (Fla. 5th DCA September 9, 2022) the insured homeowner made a claim for water damage after a roof leak claim. At deposition, the insured admitted to a prior roof leak and later produced pictures and a damage report. The insurer moved for summary judgment arguing that the insured’s concealment of the...Read More