March 9

Brand Name Drug Manufacturers: Seller Beware

Brand Name Drug Manufacturers: Seller Beware

In the past, liability of a product was limited to only those entities within the stream of commerce. A new California Supreme Court case, T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (2017) 4 Cal. 5th 145, has recently allowed a cause of action to proceed when a seller’s product was not actually the one used by a plaintiff.

February 23

California Court of Appeal Confirms that Insureds Are Not Entitled to Appointment of Cumis Counsel Where Only a Potential Conflict Exists

On January 22, 2018, in Centex Homes v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 789, the Third Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal held that a possible or potential conflict of interest did not suffice under Code of Civil Procedure section 2860 to entitle an insured developer to independent counsel. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary adjudication in favor of the insurer regarding a coverage dispute over the defense it provided to the developer, Centex Homes, subject to a reservation of rights issued in connection with a construction defect lawsuit.

January 31

Complexities of Settling Employment Claims: Considerations

All employment cases have their own unique facts. Attorneys, employees and employers must carefully consider all consequences concerning the tax ramifications of the settlement of a claim. Given that complex tax laws change often, it may be advisable to also consult with a tax attorney.