The Supreme Court has recently issued a decision that we believe Defendants in Product Liability actions, and their insurance carriers, should take note of and consider when registering as a foreign corporation in a state that is not their home state, or in legal terms, their domicile. In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. , 143 S.Ct. 2028, 216 L.Ed.2d 815 (2023), the Supreme Court of the United States considered whether a Pennsylvania statute requiring a foreign corporation to consent to personal jurisdiction when it registered to do business in the state  is constitutiona ..read more

Product liability defendants in New York were glad to hear earlier this week that Governor Hochul had finally vetoed the Grieving Families Act (GFA) which, if signed, would have greatly increased allowable damages in wrongful death cases and the class of persons who could recover for them. The good feeling may not last long, however.  In her pre-veto message published in one of New York City’s tabloids, the governor hinted at her general acceptance of the “reforms” embodied in the GFA, but expressed concern about the proposed law’s impact on business costs and insurance premiums. She invi ..read more

Olivia Goldner (Summer Law Clerk-Chicago) assisted in researching and drafting this blog post. Serving a defendant that is located outside the United States must comply with U.S. law and the law of the defendant’s home country, as well as any international agreement that may exist between the United States and the defendant’s home country, to ensure the service will be enforceable. From a practical standpoint, this means international service of process is time-consuming and expensive in most cases. Consequently, service of process by mail to a foreign defendant, and to Taiwanese defendants i ..read more

On this site, we previously reported about the comprehensive rule changes made in New York to a defendant’s obligation to provide disclosure regarding available insurance coverage. We also covered the immediate calls for amendments to these new insurance disclosure requirements as to some of the more onerous provisions among the new rules. (See “Amendments to New York’s Onerous New Insurance Disclosure Requirements May Be Imminent” and “New York Ends the Year with Onerous New Insurance Coverage Disclosure Rules for Defendants in Product Liability Litigation.”) I am pleased to report that those ..read more

Among the bills signed by New York Governor Hochul at the close of 2021 – and in addition to the bill that significantly changed New York’s insurance disclosure requirements that was the focus of our previous posts, “Amendments to New York’s Onerous New Insurance Disclosure Requirements May Be Imminent” and “New York Ends the Year with Onerous New Insurance Coverage Disclosure Rules for Defendants in Product Liability Litigation” – was a significant change to New York’s rules of evidence. On its face, it appears this change will favor the plaintiff in product liability litigation, since it is ..read more

In my last blog, we explored the onerous changes made by the New York State Legislature to the Defendant’s obligation to provide disclosure regarding available insurance. Entitled the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act, the law made wholesale changes to CPLR 3101(f)’s insurance disclosure requirements and went into immediate effect upon the bill’s signing by Governor Hochul on December 31, 2021. In summary, the Act requires defendants to provide a complete copy of all insurance policies that “may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment” and, once the policy is identified, then requi ..read more

On December 31, 2021, New York Governor Kathy Hochul closed the year by signing into law the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act (S7052) to impose sweeping changes to the rules embodied in New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) section 3101(f) as they pertain to the disclosure of defendants’ insurance coverage in New York litigation. The changes are not favorable for corporate defendants in Product Liability litigation. They are onerous, they will prove to be difficult to comply with and they will probably result in a windfall to the plaintiffs’ bar. Under the Act, a defendant within ..read more

On October 1, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law SB 447, which amended California Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34 to permit wrongful death claimants in California to recover damages for decedents’ pain, suffering or disfigurement. The bill, proposed by State Senator John Laird (D), is applicable to all wrongful death complaints filed between January 1, 2022, and January 1, 2026, as well as to all existing wrongful death cases in which a motion for trial preference under California Code of Civil Procedure section 36 – under which trial must begin within 120 days of th ..read more