 |
WHOSE CASE IS THIS ANYWAY? DEFENDING EMPLOYMENT CLAIMS WITH
"ME TOO" EVIDENCE
On many occasions counsel find themselves defending not only the claim of Plaintiff but also the charges and accusations from non-party employees. Plaintiffs often seek to establish a pattern of conduct through the anecdotal testimony of one or more fellow employees. In argument form, it is comparator evidence - for example, an employer who has discriminated against other employees is more likely to have discriminated against Plaintiff. The question is not so much whether this is true, but whether the jury gets to hear the evidence and decide for itself. Defending employment cases becomes extremely complicated and costly when a Plaintiff offers the testimony of non-party employees claiming that they, too, were subjected to the same or similar conduct - "me too" evidence.
|
|
|
THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE'S
NEW LAW OF LIABILITY
INSURANCE RESTATEMENT
On May 23, 2017, the members of the American Law Institute ("ALI") assembled in the basement of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Washington, D.C. for what was forecast as the final debate and vote on the Restatement of Law, Liability Insurance ("RLLI"). This Restatement, which would have followed in the wake of storied works of scholarship such as the Restatements of Contracts, Torts and Conflicts of Law, has been in the works since 2010 and had already been the subject of discussion at several earlier ALI Annual Meetings. At the last minute, however, the ALI deferred a final vote until May 2018. What happened, and what does this debate portend for the future of the RLLI?
|
|
MCGILL V CITIBANK:
DID THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT JUST FORCE JUSTICE GORSUCH AND THE U.S. SUPREMES TO PUT THE HAMMER DOWN ON STATE COURTS THAT DO NOT SEE THE ARBITRATION WRITING ON THE WALL?
Given the past six years of undeniably pro-arbitration United States Supreme Court jurisprudence, does there remain any basis for a state court to place limits on the enforceability of arbitration clauses? The California Supreme Court still thinks so. In McGill v. Citibank, 2 Cal.5th 945, 2017 Cal. LEXIS 2551 (2017), the Court recently held that an arbitration clause was invalid - but only after assuring its readers (possibly including a certain, recently confirmed U.S. Supreme Court Justice) that the case is not really about the enforceability of arbitration clauses in the first place. Instead, the Court explained that McGill concerns whether a customer can waive a statutory right primarily intended to benefit the general public - a question that should produce the same answer regardless of whether an arbitration clause is involved.
|
|
PICKING UP THE TAB WHEN YOU WEREN'T INVITED TO DINNER:
AN INSURED'S EFFORT
TO COLLECT A CONSENT JUDGMENT
TO THE SURPRISE OF THE INSURER
TOM BAZEMORE
The obligation of an insurer to defend an insured is universally recognized as broader than an insurer's obligation to indemnify. Even so, insurers are frequently confronted with a claim or lawsuit that does not warrant coverage and no defense is provided. The coverage issues underlying such a decision are innumerable. As an example, a property insurer may deny coverage to its insured based upon a finding that the underlying claim did not arise during the coverage period. Similarly, an insurer may deny coverage under a general liability policy after concluding that the underlying accident arose from a set of facts that falls within the parameters of one of the policy's express exclusions. In either example, the decision to deny coverage and refuse to provide a defense removes the insurer from the "front row seat" in the litigation.
|
|
Copyright © 2017
Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel
All rights reserved
You may contact us at:
275 N. York Street, Elmhurst, IL 60126 | 630-433-4517
Reid S. Manley, Chair, Publications Committee, FDCC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
