The hemp-derived cannabinoid market continues to grow and evolve despite lingering questions over federal legality and numerous state laws that try to keep pace. Much has been written about new “legal” hemp products that contain intoxicating delta-8 THC, delta-10 THC and THC-O Acetate. This article, however, seeks to highlight a brazen new use for familiar old delta-9 THC. Edible products with intoxicating levels of delta-9 THC now are being sold as legal and less-expensive alternatives to regulated cannabis products. Although purveyors of hemp-derived delta-9 THC seek to exploit a perceived loophole in the 2018 Farm Bill’s definition of hemp extracts, these unregulated and intoxicating products are fraught with risk. The cannabis and hemp industries and their insurers should take notice and respond now. Continue Reading Delta-9 THC Products from Hemp Are a Risk Not Worth Taking
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
Hardly a week goes by that I don’t receive an email or other solicitation from a third-party Litigation Funding company about whether my clients would be interested in putting together a deal. I suspect I am not alone and many other lawyers are receiving the same type of targeted email marketing from Litigation Funding companies.
In Ebert v. C.R. Bard, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit determined that Pennsylvania state law is unclear on two issues of medical device liability, and sent the issues to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for review.
In Ebert, a G2 clot filter made by Bard was placed into the plaintiff’s inferior vena cava. Although the filter was set to be removed after three years, it could not be removed because one of its struts broke, grew into the vein wall and was caught in the plaintiff’s pulmonary artery. Thus, the plaintiff was forced to undergo a procedure to remove the filter. The plaintiff then brought suit, alleging negligent design and strict liability. Continue Reading Third Circuit Sends Questions Regarding Medical Device Liability to Pennsylvania Supreme Court for Review
In a product liability case where a manufacturer is defending a claim that a product it designed was defective and the cause of a plaintiff’s injury, the manufacturer may attempt to introduce evidence at trial showing its product was manufactured in accordance with applicable industry standards. Proof that the product was designed in accordance with industry standards, in some instances, can establish that the product was built with the latest technological advancements being used by other manufacturers in the marketplace. Continue Reading Despite Tincher, Pennsylvania Superior Court Determines “Industry Standards” Is Still Not a Viable Defense to Product Liability Claims