| |
|
COAST TO COAST QUARTERLY
Transportation and Insurance Newsletter |
March 2008 , Volume 3, Issue 1 |
|
|
McElfish Law Firm |
|
Trucking Law Seminar Presented by DRI's Trucking Law Committee
April 17-18, 2008 Pointe Hilton Tapatio Cliffs, Phoenix, AZ
Join us to discuss issues arising in the rapidly changing world of trucking litigation. DRI's Trucking Law Seminar will offer helpful tips and insights about the challenges currently confronting the trucking industry and address issues on the horizon. Learn about the latest technology and its application to trucking litigation, the evolving issues of e-discovery and how to respond to the increasingly sophisticated arguments being advocated by plaintiffs. Our unique format, which will incorporate breakout and plenary sessions, will highlight trial tactics, workers' compensation issues and litigation trends in the trucking industry. The program is designed to appeal to lawyers and claims personnel who may have recently become involved in trucking litigation.
If you have not yet received your brochure, check it out at the DRI Website,
http://www.dri.org/DRI/open/CLE.aspx?sem=20080215
|
The Pursuit of Happiness in the Inside-Outside Counsel Relationship: The Transportation Insurance Perspective.
By Elizabeth Robertson, Canal Insurance Company, Greenville, SC |
|
The U.S. Constitution guarantees it. Will Smith recently received an Oscar nod for his pursuit of it. Everyone in
this room wants it: Happiness… especially in key relationships. But in order to achieve happiness in a relationship, doesn’t it follow that there must be some alignment between the parties in terms of what
“happiness” actually means? I’m sure Oprah and Dr. Phil would agree that this is true when it comes to personal relations, but how does that affect those of us in the transportation insurance world? |
To the transportation company, it might mean risk allocation through tight indemnity agreements, prompt and courteous claims service, the assertion of strong defenses without reservations of rights, and settlements within policy limits. To their insurer it might mean, prompt notice of loss, ready cooperation, and timely production of electronic and hard data. To their Inside Counsel, it might mean cost-effective litigation management resulting in positive loss ratios and company profits. To their Outside Counsel, it might mean a steady
|
influx of case assignments and a positive business relationship.
Click HERE to read the entire article.
Elizabeth Robertson, Esq.
Manager, Claims Legal
Canal Insurance Company
P.O. Box 7
Greenville, S.C. 29602
Phone (864) 250-9468
Fax (864) 679-2513
elizabeth.robertson@canal-ins.com
|
The Duty to Defend & The Duty to Indemify: A look at Woo v. Fireman's Fund across the 9th Circuit.
By Jeffrey Lynn, McElfish Law Firm |
|
The case of Woo v. Fireman's Fund, 164P 3d. 454, Wash., 2007, is an interesting case which makes clear that if there is a POTENTIAL for coverage there is a duty to defend. The case was one in which a dentist placed tusks inside the mouth of an employee/patient, took pictures of the tusks inside the mouth of the employee/patient, and then completed the procedure. The dentist intended this to be funny, but the victim of the "prank" didn't see it that way at all. The Insurer, on the advice of counsel, refused to defend the suit against the dentist by the employee/patient. However, the advice of counsel was only a good defense if that advice was reasonable, i.e., not incorrect. This was particularly the case where counsels analysis of the nature of the employee/patient's claim was equivocal, which in and of itself established the potential for coverage and a duty to defend.
|
Ultimately, the burden is on the carrier to prove that there is NO POSSIBLITY of coverage. If it cannot do so, it MUST defend.
This topic was given as a PowerPoint presentation.
|
Jeffrey Lynn, Esq.
McElfish Law Firm
1112 N Sherbourne Drive
West Hollywood CA, 90069
Phone (310) 659 4900
Fax (310) 659-4926
jlynn@mcelfishlaw.com
|
In Catastrophic Injury Cases: Consider Moving to Exclude the Plaintiff from Attending the Trial.
By - Timothy J. Gardner, Carlock, Copeland, Semler, & Stair, LLP, Atlanta, GA |
|
Many defense attorneys will ultimately face the challenge of trying a case against an overly sympathetic plaintiff and the question will loom: how do we keep the jury focused on the facts of the case and not the plaintiff's disability? It is natural for anyone, even a defense attorney, to develop sympathies for a plaintiff suffering from a catastrophic condition; however, it is unjust to allow a plaintiff's condition to prevent a defendant from receiving a fair trial based on the merits of the case. To level the playing field, a defense
|
attorney may consider moving the court to exclude the plaintiff from attending the trial because of the overwhelming prejudicial effect the plaintiff's condition would have on a jury.
Click HERE to read the entire article.
|
Timothy J. Gardner
Carlock, Copeland, Semler & Stair, LLP
2600 Marquis Two Tower
285 Peachtree Center Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
404.221.2277 - direct
404.215.5616 - fax
tgardner@carlockcopeland.com
|
Document Retention Policies, Litigation Holds and the Duty to Preserve Electronic Data
By - Paul S. Holscher , Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog, LLP Raleigh, NC |
|
Hypothetical: Your phone rings and on the other line is Mrs. Simons. Simons is the vice president for ABC Company. She informs you that a former employee of ABC Company filed a lawsuit against ABC two weeks ago. The complaint contains several claims, including one of gender discrimination. Along with the complaint, there were more than 30 requests for production of documents. Mrs. Simons indicates that the plaintiff had made several complaints to the human resourcesdepartment during the course of the past year. Mrs. Simons can’t recall the company’s policy regarding deletion of e-mails, but thinks they are routinely deleted by the IT department. Mrs. Simons then asks
|
you if the company should institute “some kind of a hold” on the deletion of documents and wants to know if there are any potential problems with how ABC Company has handled the lawsuit so far.
Click HERE to read the entire article.
|
Paul S. Holscher
Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog LLP
225 Hillsborough Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Tel: (919) 863-8713
Fax: (919) 863-3464
pholscher@cshlaw.com
|
|
Copyright © 2005 McElfishLaw Web Site contains information of general interest to the public
and does not constitute legal advice. No claims, promises or guarantees
about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information
contained in or linked to this web site are made. The receipt of
this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.
As legal advice must be tailored to the specific circumstances of
each case, and laws are constantly changing, nothing provided herein
should be used as a substitute for the advice of competent counsel.
=== Disclaimer ===
The information in this e-mail is confidential, may be legally
privileged and is intended solely for the addressee. If the reader
of this communication is not the intended recipient or an agent
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that you have received this communication in error
and that any use, review, dissemination, distribution, or copying
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail,
and delete this e-mail and any copy thereof. As you may know,
e-mails sent via Internet can easily be altered or manipulated
by third persons. For this reason, we do not assume any responsibility
for changes made to this message after it was sent. E-mail transmissions
carry a risk of virus and we advise you to perform your own virus
checks. We accept no liability for any loss or damage as a result
of any form of e-mail borne virus.
|
|
|
