HB Litigation News

Category: News

  • Broken Privilege and IoT with Kathryn Rattigan

    Broken Privilege and IoT with Kathryn Rattigan

    Broken Privilege and IoT with Kathryn Rattigan

    Broken Privilege IOT Kathryn Rattigan

    Joining me to discuss this emerging area of law is Kathryn M. Rattigan, a member of the Business Litigation Group, the Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Team, and the Drone Compliance Team in the Rhode Island office of Robinson Cole.

    Kathryn provides clients guidance regarding privacy and data protection in connection with mobile devices, data storage technologies, mobile apps, and location-based services. She  assists with the development of website and mobile app privacy policies and  terms and conditions. Kathryn is a frequent contributor to the excellent Robinson Cole Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Insider blog.  She holds a J.D. from the Roger Williams University School of Law and a B.A. (magna cum laude) from Stonehill College.

    This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative Kathryn is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

    Finally, yes, “skeevy” is a word. And the law is not settled as to whether Shiloh has privacy rights.

    Tom Hagy
    Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

    There are now billions and billions of interconnected devices in the world with more coming online every day. Smart cars. Smart cities. Smart agriculture and so much more. Even our pets are connected.

    And you have to look no further than the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack to see the real-world consequences of what criminals can pull off by connecting with things large and small.

    Worried about your privacy? Well. There is plenty to worry about.

    Fortunately we also have a lot of people fighting back on the technical, security, law enforcement, and legal fronts.

  • The Cyber Insurance Market Has Problems: A Conversation With Tom Johansmeyer

    The Cyber Insurance Market Has Problems: A Conversation With Tom Johansmeyer

    The Cyber Insurance Market Has Problems: A Conversation With Tom Johansmeyer

    The author of the piece is my guest on our latest episode. He is Tom Johansmeyer, ARM, is head of PCS, a Verisk business. PCS investigates and provide, independent loss estimates on catastrophes and large individual losses to the benefit of the global risk and capital supply chain. Tom has focused on the broad and rapid expansion of PCS, leading the team into Japan, New Zealand, and other APAC regions in 2019 – as well as Mexico. Tom is the architect of the PCS entry into global specialty lines, most recently adding large risk loss reporting to the group’s portfolio. Previously, Tom held insurance industry roles at Guy Carpenter (where he launched the first corporate blog in the reinsurance sector) and Deloitte. Personally, I like his LinkedIn description: “Aspiring cyclist and distance swimmer, former soldier. Leading the global charge at PCS. Haven’t driven anything with a motor since 2007.” Excellent.

    This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the legal news folks at Law Street Media, and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Docket Alarm and Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful our guests are, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

    You might notice that I misused a commonly used term, one specifically common in the world of insurance, or maybe you weren’t paying that much attention. That would make two of us. Also, Tom J. was just a fun interview and I hope to get him back! I like the way he explained his candor at the end. He suffers from an infliction that I wish were a pandemic. I hope you enjoy it.

    Tom Hagy
    Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

    “Facing the prospect of major financial fallout from an attack, C-suites around the world have turned to cyber insurance. Insurers are issuing more policies, and the amounts of protection available are increasing.

    “In 2020, according to data proprietary to the team I lead, the global insurance community saw the first cyber insurance program to exceed $1 billion — and the second. However, the momentum that has propelled the sector this far may be running out. The cyber insurance sector may still be in its infancy, but there are signs that it’s hit a (hopefully temporary) plateau.”

    From a Jan. 11, 2021, article in the Harvard Business Review titled “Cybersecurity Insurance Has a Big Problem.”

  • Public Justice Shares Inside Look at Roundup Trial and Appeal in First Episode of “Justice Pod”

    Public Justice Shares Inside Look at Roundup Trial and Appeal in First Episode of “Justice Pod”

    Public Justice Discusses Hardeman v. Monsanto in First Episode of Justice Pod

    Justice Pod

    That is according to a post written by Leslie Brueckner, Senior Attorney with Public Justice following the May 2021 Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling against Monsanto, and for Edwin Hardeman, a California resident who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after decades of exposure to Roundup. The jury awarded Hardeman $5,267.634.10 in compensatory damages, and $75 million in punitive damages. The district court reduced the punitive damages award to $20 million. 

    In this inaugural episode of Justice Pod: Conversations with Public Justice Change Makers, Leslie, is joined by David J. Wool, an attorney with the Wagstaff Law Firm.  Wool and Jennifer A. Moore of the Moore Law Group, were on the trial team led by highly-regarded mass tort plaintiff attorney Aimee Wagstaff.  Public Justice’s Brueckner served as co-lead appellate counsel along with Wool before the Ninth Circuit.

    Listen to what they felt inspired the jury to return such a substantial award, how Monsanto attempted to defend its actions, what the evidence revealed, and what it was like in the courtroom with the Hardeman family when the foreman read the verdict.

    I hope you find the episode inspiring and informative!

    Susan Gombert
    Host of Justice Pod:
    Conversations with Public Justice Change Makers

    Listen Now!

    Monsanto Co. has “stopped at nothing to deny the overwhelming scientific evidence” that its widely used and extremely profitable weed killer,  Roundup, is a “deadly product that causes cancer and ruins lives and families.”

  • Putting an AI App to Work to Protect IP with Jan-Diederik Lindemans and Judith Bussé

    Putting an AI App to Work to Protect IP with Jan-Diederik Lindemans and Judith Bussé

    Putting an AI App to Work to Protect IP with Jan-Diederik Lindemans and Judith Bussé

    They are Crowell & Moring partner Jan-Diederik Lindemans and Judith Bussé, both part of the firm’s Technology & Intellectual Property Department in Brussels. And, working with Neotalogic, they developed an interactive app that takes you through a set of attorney-crafted questions that, depending on your answers, take you to other questions. The app applies a layer of artificial intelligence to enhance the information gathering process. Listen to what these innovators had to say about the Crowell & Moring IP Check-Up application, and take it for a test drive yourself.  Or, here is a quick video of someone using the app.

    This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation*, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the legal news folks at Law Street Media, and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Docket Alarm and Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful our guests are, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

    Tom Hagy
    Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast

    * Highly regarded insurance and reinsurance industry attorney Laura Foggan of Crowell & Moring’s Washington, DC, office is on the Editorial Advisory Board. Thanks to Laura for connecting me with J.D. and Judith. 

    An organization’s intellectual property is often its most valuable asset.

    Whether it’s a patent or a trademark, a graphic design or proprietary market information, or just the unique way they do what they do, organizations must protect their innovations or risk significant damage to their future prospects.

    Assessing the vulnerabilities of such valuable inventory is as important as it is time-consuming. But a portfolio protection and process review involves answering the same long set of questions posed to any organization, no matter what type.

    There is the problem. You have a critical invention. You don’t know if it’s at risk. What do you do? You contact a lawyer, of course. You go through the process, one they have managed many times before. What if you could do this yourself first, before contacting a firm? What if it took just 20 minutes and could be done from the comfort of your desk? If you’re the attorney, what if you already had many of your questions answered before your first meeting with a new client? 

    An innovative pair of attorneys in Brussels asked these questions and came up with a solution. And I had the pleasure of interviewing them.

  • Strategies for Maximizing Insurance Recovery for Climate Change–Related Loss and Damage

    Strategies for Maximizing Insurance Recovery for Climate Change–Related Loss and Damage

    Strategies for Maximizing  Insurance Recovery for Climate Change–Related Loss and Damage

    Abstract

    Losses from natural catastrophes are costing many tens of billions as year, from hurricanes and tornadoes to record-breaking rainfall and floods. Whether the insurance industry will or can provide coverage for all of the devastating effects of climate change (or, as some might put it, a new and calamitous phase in our earth’s existence) only time will tell. In the meantime, policyholders must cross their Ts if they expect coverage. In this article the author shares insights on the complex but essential task of documenting and valuing post-storm losses.

    Author

    Dennis J. Artese (dartese@andersonkill.com) is a shareholder in the New York office of Anderson Kill P.C. His practice concentrates on insurance recovery litigation, with an emphasis on securing insurance coverage for first-party property losses, construction accidents, and third-party liability claims.

    About
    The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation is a co-production of HB, Fastcase, and Law Street Media. You can also hear the complementary (and complimentary) Emerging Litigation Podcast wherever podcasts appear. For questions, contact Tom Hagy, Editor in Chief, at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

    Loading Viewer…

  • Biotech Patent Wars: If at First You Don’t Succeed . . . University of California v. The Broad Institute

    Biotech Patent Wars: If at First You Don’t Succeed . . . University of California v. The Broad Institute

    Biotech Patent Wars: If at First You Don’t Succeed . . . University of California v. The Broad Institute

    Abstract

    This case discussed in this article is about two methods of editing DNA: one that has infinitely more lucrative applications because it can edit human DNA (plus all animals and plants), another that works in cell-free environments. Whether inventions are separate or part of the same innovation is an important factor in patent interference disputes; if there are two patentably distinct inventions there cannot be interference. One party in this case lost its argument that there was only one invention at issue, but returned with a second interference claim, arguing that it was the first inventor to constructively reduce to practice the animal and plant DNA editor. In this article, the author examines the nuances and intricacies of the patent process in the world of biology, and how patent lawyers must possess a level of knowledge in disciplines related to the inventions they seek to protect. This is necessary, for example, in understanding whether an invention is a significant improvement over prior innovations. The author also shares the importance of confidentiality especially when potentially groundbreaking (and lucrative) inventions are in development.

    Author

    Adrienne B. Naumann (adriennebnaumann@uchicago.edu) practices intellectual property law at the Law Office of Adrienne B. Naumann in Skokie, Illinois. She has held leadership positions relating to patents, science, and technology law with the Chicago Bar Association and the Converging Technologies Association. She currently serves as Secretary on the Board of the University of Chicago Women’s Alliance. Ms. Naumann has also written numerous articles on intellectual 56 Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation property law and her book United States Federal Intellectual Property Developments includes discussion of decisions under the Defend Trade Secrets Act as well as those by the Supreme Court and was published by Pincus Professional Education.

    About
    The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation is a co-production of HB, Fastcase, and Law Street Media. You can also hear the complementary (and complimentary) Emerging Litigation Podcast wherever podcasts appear. For questions, contact Tom Hagy, Editor in Chief, at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

    Loading Viewer…

  • Mega Verdict Threat: Tackling Damages Early Can Mitigate Outsized Jury Awards

    Mega Verdict Threat: Tackling Damages Early Can Mitigate Outsized Jury Awards

    Mega Verdict Threat: Tackling Damages Early Can Mitigate Outsized Jury Awards

    Abstract

    Why have medical malpractice verdicts in recent years reached such astronomical new heights? In this article the author addresses several of the factors that drive juries to return such punishing awards, discussing the unexpected impact of tort reform, the role of life-care planners and economists in determining damages, the ramifications of litigation financing, plaintiff attorneys’ utilization of the so-called reptile theory, and the influence of how the media reports on these verdicts. The author offers practical methods for defense attorneys involved in this litigation and insights that will benefit attorneys in any type of tort matter.

    Author

    Sandra M. Cianflone (scianflone@hallboothsmith.com) is an attorney at law firm Hall Booth Smith, P.C., whose practice primarily focuses on medical malpractice.

    About
    The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation is a co-production of HB, Fastcase, and Law Street Media. You can also hear the complementary (and complimentary) Emerging Litigation Podcast wherever podcasts appear. For questions, contact Tom Hagy, Editor in Chief, at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

    Loading Viewer…

  • Surfside Condo Collapse: A 360-Degree Insurance Coverage Analysis

    Surfside Condo Collapse: A 360-Degree Insurance Coverage Analysis

    Surfside Condo Collapse: A 360-Degree Insurance Coverage Analysis

    Abstract

    The horrific and fatal collapse of Champlain Towers South in the summer of 2021 not only shook the ground in Surfside, Florida, but it brought into question the integrity of structures everywhere. If professionals in the construction, real estate, and building management industries were relaxed about signs of structural decay before, they are not anymore. The insurance industry also has reasons to worry, as potentially responsible players turn to their policies to defend or indemnify them for claims for accidents causing losses including from property damage, personal injury, or death. In this article the authors evaluate the factors that are addressed when coverage determinations are made, as well as the various types of policies that come into play.

    Authors

    Allen R. Wolff (awolff@andersonkill.com) is a shareholder in Anderson Kill’s New York office, where he concentrates on the intersection of construction litigation and insurance recovery. Allen is co-chair of the firm’s Construction Industry Practice group and Corporate and Commercial Litigation Practice group. He advises and represents policyholders—building owners, developers, contractors, retailers, municipalities, financial institutions, hospitality businesses, condominium associations, and tenants’ associations—in a range of insurance coverage disputes. Allen’s colleagues, Ethan W. Middlebrooks (emiddlebrooks@andersonkill.com) and Jason Kosek (jkosek@andersonkill.com), are also attorneys in Anderson Kill’s New York office. They also concentrate on insurance recovery for policyholders and other complex matters.

    About
    The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation is a co-production of HB, Fastcase, and Law Street Media. You can also hear the complementary (and complimentary) Emerging Litigation Podcast wherever podcasts appear. For questions, contact Tom Hagy, Editor in Chief, at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

    Loading Viewer…

  • To Pay or Not to Pay: Does Your Insurance Policy Cover Ransomware Losses? | By Pamela Hans | Anderson Kill

    To Pay or Not to Pay: Does Your Insurance Policy Cover Ransomware Losses? | By Pamela Hans | Anderson Kill

    To Pay or Not to Pay: Does Your Insurance Policy Cover Ransomware Losses?

    Abstract

    Ransomware attacks are a rapidly growing threat against organizations. Paying ransom demands is a risky proposition and may even lead to sanctions against the targeted company. Either way, the damage to a company’s operation and integrity can be cripplingly severe. Should a company suffer losses from cyber extortion, its insurance company will be one of the resources it turns to for relief. But with cyber
    coverage increasingly out of reach for some, policyholders may find coverage in more traditional coverages. In this article, the author evaluates the potential for coverage under several policy types, and underscores the importance of understanding policy language, the relevant law, and the potential regulatory ramifications of meeting ransom demands.

    Author

    Pamela D. Hans (phans@andersonkill.com) is the managing shareholder of Anderson Kill’s Philadelphia office. Her practice concentrates on insurance coverage exclusively on behalf of policyholders. Pam is also a member of the firm’s COVID Task Group and Cyber Recovery Group.

    About
    The Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation is a co-production of HB, Fastcase, and Law Street Media. You can also hear the complementary (and complimentary) Emerging Litigation Podcast wherever podcasts appear. For questions, contact Tom Hagy, Editor in Chief, at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

    Loading Viewer…

  • Wildfire Litigation and Recovery with Ed Diab

    Wildfire Litigation and Recovery with Ed Diab

    Wildfire Litigation and Recovery with Ed Diab

    I had the pleasure of interviewing Ed Diab, co-founder of Dixon Diab & Chambers in San Diego, about his firm’s role in the litigation, what the claims are, what defenses they encounter, settlements they have secured, what evidentiary hurdles plaintiffs face, and  more.  They’ve been successful. Since 2018, Dixon Diab & Chambers has recovered more $1.4 billion in settlements. And there is more to come. The firm represents more than 40 public entities – including some of the largest cities and counties in California – as well as thousands of individuals and families. Ed leads the firm’s mass tort practice which, in addition to wildfire litigation, represents people who allege injuries from defective drugs and medical devices.

    This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the legal news folks at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful our guests are, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

    Thanks to Ed Diab for speaking with me about this fascinating and frightening subject, and to Baron & Budd’s Scott Summy for introducing us.  For my part, I am sure my suggestion that they install smoke detectors all over the forest is complete nonsense.  Also, I spoke with a friend who majored in Latin. Even though I showed zero confidence, I apparently stumbled close to the pronunciation of flammagenitus, Latin for “fire cloud.” I promised you a photo of one. Also called pyrocumulus clouds, they look as terrifying as they sound.

    Tom Hagy
    Host
    Emerging Litigation Podcast

    via GIPHY

    Wildfires are causing more destruction in North America than at any time in recorded history. 

    In 2010 they consumed 3.4 million acres, but nearly tripled to devour more than 10 million acres in 2020.

    They also have been responsible for numerous injuries and loss of life, razing thousands of homes, displacing wildlife, destroying natural resources, and even spewing air pollution thousands of miles away. Fighting these hellish infernos is a massive, all-out-war-like undertaking. The 2020 Dixie Fire was finally brought under control with the help of 6,500 personnel (from firefighters to the people who fed them), 1,000 fire trucks, water tankers, and bulldozers, and 1,000 miles of firehose. While some fires occur naturally, set off by lightening, for example, 84% are caused by humans. And, no matter how you slice it, humans are helping create the conditions of this continental tinderbox.

    One group of attorneys from Baron & Budd and Dixon Diab & Chambers LLP is securing and seeking recovery for individuals, municipalities, and insurance companies that pay claims, when they can accomplish the difficult task of identifying the responsible parties. Positioned as “Wildfire Recovery Attorneys,” they have done so in cases against Pacific Gas & Electric Corp. and Southern California Edison, which they have sued for allegedly failing to maintain power lines and the areas beneath them, among other things.