Showing 1 - 10 of 1349
In this blog, we explore how developments in technology have created new types of product liability and safety risks and given rise to new categories of damage. We also examine developments in the mechanisms for claiming damages.
Navigating the differences in determining Jones Act and Longshore status for defending claims in maritime litigation
At first glance, the waters can be murky when wading through a determination of a maritime employee’s status as a Jones Act seaman or a longshoreman. The determination of whether an individual is a Jones Act seaman or a longshoreman, which determination is based on the individual's job duties, the nature of their work, and the specific circumstances under which the individual is employed, is critically important. The Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688, and the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (“LHWCA”), 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., each provide different legal protections and remedies for workers who are injured on the job.
Court of Appeal provides further guidance on mixed injury cases, but what does this mean for fraud practitioners?
Since the implementation of the Official Injuries Claims Portal, the personal injury industry has eagerly awaited further guidance from the judiciary as to the applicable compensation to be awarded to claimants who have sustained a whiplash injury as defined by the Civil Liability Act and a ‘non-whiplash injury’.
Cases concerning ethical and moral decision making always attract widespread interest. In our recent Medical Law Group seminar in Cambridge – Best Interests - Planning Ahead – we explored many of the reasons for this and how decision-making could become less committee-led.
Case review 19/01/2023
High Court of England and Wales provides clarification on the test to be applied in determining whether an event resulting in bodily injury during carriage by air amounts to an accident within the meaning of the Montreal Convention 1999.
It is undeniable that the way consumers purchase their products and engage with services on the internet has changed substantially since times past. The modern consumer has global buying power, and suppliers must adapt in order to meet this consumer demand. This change in consumer behaviour has brought both benefits, but also introduced legal risks that have required careful consideration by regulators and legislators alike.
In Practice Series – How to mitigate the growing risk from consumer class actions and Collective Redress in Europe
In the last ten years there has been a significant growth in the use of collective redress or representative actions ('group litigation'), a legal mechanism which may stop or prevent unlawful business practices that affect multiple claimants or compensate them for harm caused by these practices, within the EU and UK.
Financier Worldwide (FW) discusses regulating AI in the life sciences sector with Samantha Silver, Sarah-Jane Dobson, Charlie Whitchurch and Paula Margolis at Kennedys Law LLP.
Getting physical: Ohio Supreme Court holds that software cannot be physically damaged and endorsement covering software must be triggered by physical loss or damage to covered property
On December 27, 2022, the Supreme Court of Ohio unanimously ruled that a businessowners property insurance policy issued by Owners Insurance Co. (Owners) to EMOI Services, LLC (EMOI) did not afford coverage for losses sustained in a ransomware attack because computer software is “entirely intangible” and “cannot experience ‘direct physical loss or physical damage’.
A new year inevitably brings changes to existing laws and “time-limited demands” are no exception. Parties and jurists use different names to refer to such demands, including “time limit demands,” “policy limit demands,” or “time-limited settlement offers.” They may also take the form of statutory “998 Offers to Compromise” pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 998, which often seek a specific amount equal to the limits of an insurance policy.