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
Continue Reading New York Enacts New Rule of Evidence Expanding the Scope of the Admissibility of Employee-Agent Hearsay Statements

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.
Continue Reading Amendments to New York’s Onerous New Insurance Disclosure Requirements May Be Imminent

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.

Continue Reading New York Ends the Year with Onerous New Insurance Coverage Disclosure Rules for Defendants in Product Liability Litigation

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.
Continue Reading California’s SB 447 – Increasing the Danger in One of the Country’s Most Favorable Venues for Personal Injury Plaintiffs

As product liability defense counsel, we of course stay up to date on significant court decisions dealing with the defense of Personal Jurisdiction. In cases where we are representing a corporation that was not sued in its home state (i.e., the state where it maintains its headquarters or where it was incorporated), we always consider filing a potential motion to dismiss on behalf of the foreign corporation at the outset of the case. In a motion to dismiss for lack of Personal Jurisdiction, the defense argues that it is not subject to the jurisdiction of the court where the action is filed, and therefore the “Forum Court” does not have the authority to render a decision or judgment that is binding on the foreign corporation, since it lacks the requisite jurisdiction. A jurisdictional motion to dismiss can be extremely powerful, and can protect a defendant from wrongfully being hauled into a court that is located outside of its home state and that does not have any connection to the issues that are in dispute in the lawsuit. Nonetheless, it also is important to carefully consider the prospects of raising this defense at the outset of the case, because the defense can be waived by a defendant, and in some instances, a defendant can consent to the Personal Jurisdiction of a foreign state.
Continue Reading NY’s Highest Court Issues Noteworthy Decision on the Limits of Personal Jurisdiction over Foreign Corporations