Charleston, W.V.: “A judge has ruled that the country’s largest firearms maker is not liable for two police officers being shot by a felon using a gun made by the Connecticut company. Kanawha County Circuit Judge Irene Berger on Thursday ruled that former Orange, N.J., police officers Dave Lemongello and Kenneth McGuire are not entitled to damages from Fairfield, Conn.-based Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc.” Gun-control activists had sought publicity for the case, which they argued exemplified the merits of litigation against the gun industry. In June Will’s Jewelry and Loan Co., the pawnshop where the gun was sold, agreed to pay $1 million to settle with the officers. (“Gun maker found not liable for police shooting”, AP/Stamford Advocate, Oct. 1). The Second Amendment Foundation applauded the judge’s ruling.
Posts Tagged ‘Connecticut’
Cost of defending your product: $250 million
Connecticut-based Purdue Pharma has been highly successful at fending off mass tort lawyers’ assault on its revolutionary but often-abused painkiller, Oxycontin. So the system works? Well, aside from the fact that its defense costs have reached $250 million. And now the company is entangled in insurance coverage litigation. (Lisa Siegel, “No Escaping OxyContin Fee Frenzy”, Connecticut Law Tribune, Sept. 27). For more on Oxycontin, see Oct. 21 and Oct. 19, 2003 and links from there.
Tasteful moments in lawyer advertising
The Hartford, Ct. law firm of Haymond, Napoli & Diamond runs an ad that particularly annoys the state’s chief justice, William J. Sullivan. According to the Connecticut Law Tribune, the ad “show[s] bags of money being dropped off by an armored truck, in a presumed showing of the attorney’s courtroom prowess.” (Keith Griffin, “Conn. Justice Attacks ‘Aggressive’ Lawyer Ads”, Connecticut Law Tribune, Jun. 15). Meanwhile, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert today continues his vehement attack on those who suggest the medical liability system might be in need of some reining in, charging: “This is all about greed.” (“Malpractice Myths”, Jun. 21).
“Betting on the Pequots”
Yesterday’s New York Post published my favorable review of Brett Fromson’s book Hitting the Jackpot: The Inside Story of the Richest Indian Tribe in History about the machinations that resulted in the rise of the Mashantucket Pequot tribe in Connecticut and its fabulously successful casino, Foxwoods. The story is one replete with bald impostures facilitated by lawyers who, in a fine career arc, started out in the ever-so-idealistic legal services movement and gradually turned into well-compensated casino promoters, all on behalf of a crew of putative tribe members who “are about as authentically Indian as Camilla Parker Bowles.” (Walter Olson, “Betting on the Pequots”, May 16).
Great Tobacco Robbery developments
In March Moody’s lowered its rating of New York City’s tobacco settlement bonds (which securitize the future flow of booty to the city from the great 1998 robbery) in light of the Second Circuit’s highly significant decision in Freedom Holdings v. Spitzer (see Jan. 12) exposing the settlement to antitrust challenge (Reuters/Forbes, Mar. 23). The Second Circuit itself denied a petition for rehearing (opinion Mar. 25 in PDF format). The General Accounting Office published a report confirming that states are spending most of the proceeds on their general budgets rather than on anything related to the weed or its effects (March report in PDF format, via the University of Tennessee’s AgPolicy.org page on tobacco litigation, which has a number of useful resources), which in turn touched off a number of caustic commentaries (“States Spend Mega-Billion Tobacco Settlement On Budget Shortfalls”, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Mar. 23; Christine Hall, “States Spend Tobacco Settlement on Budget Shortfalls”, Heartland Institute, May 1; see Nancy Zuckerbrod, “States rely on tobacco settlement to fix budgets”, AP/Louisville Courier-Journal, Mar. 23). Also check out the debate between CEI’s Sam Kazman and ever-blustering Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal on CNNfN (Mar. 18). Vice Squad (Mar. 27) has further updates on the efforts of state governments to curtail small and independent cigarette producers by way of protecting the anticompetitive arrangements established in the 1998 settlement (see Feb. 28). And the Clinton-initiated federal racketeering lawsuit against the tobacco industry, the continued prosecution of which must surely count as among the low points of the Bush Administration’s domestic record, is apparently headed toward trial in September or thereabouts (“Federal suit against tobacco moves toward trial”, AP/Helena Independent Record, Mar. 22).
Update: trial lawyers’ war against Allstate
Plaintiff’s lawyers have for years pursued a grudge match against the Allstate insurance company because of its “Do You Need An Attorney?” campaign, launched in the mid-1990s, by which the company suggests to persons with possible claims against its policyholders that it may not be absolutely necessary for them to sign up with a lawyer (see Apr. 18, 2000; Dec. 22, 1999). In the state of Connecticut, scene of some of the fiercest skirmishing, the attorneys’ fondest hopes have not been realized: in January a federal judge ruled in Allstate’s favor “on claims it breached an implied contract of good faith and fair dealing, and was engaging in unfair trade practice, unfair insurance practice, recklessness and fraud.” However, it’s not as if the insurer, which is based in Northbrook, Ill., is now free to say whatever it pleases in post-car-crash situations in the Nutmeg State: “In 1996, as president of the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association, Reardon [New London plaintiffs’ attorney Robert I. Reardon] successfully lobbied for a new law that forbids insurers from discouraging their adversaries from hiring a lawyer.” (Thomas B. Scheffey, “Allstate Victorious in Anti-Lawyer Campaign”, Connecticut Law Tribune, Feb. 2).
One less Illinois doctor
“Dr. Eileen Murphy has been delivering babies for 18 years, including Governor [Rod] Blagojevich’s daughter, Anne. But on April 30 she’ll see her last patient. She just can’t afford to do it anymore. … The problem’s not her $170,000 a year salary. It’s her insurance premium which jumped to $138,000 this year. Without insurance she can’t get hospital privileges. ‘If anything goes wrong, even if it’s a possible complication, a possible natural outcome, you can almost guarantee that you are going to be sued,’ Murphy said.” (“Doctors Protest Malpractice Rates”, CBS 2 Chicago, Mar. 24). Murphy plans to become a junior high school teacher instead, according to news reports. “I am going on strike for tort reform,” she wrote in a letter to her patients. More: Spoons Experience, Capitol Grilling bulletin board. Even more: Chicago Tribune on state’s crisis (“The doctors are leaving”, Apr. 18) (editorial); Maureen Martin, Heartland Institute, Mar. 26; Patrick J. Powers, “Doctor laments loss of friends to other states”, Belleville News-Democrat, Jan. 14.
The Hartford Courant on Apr. 4 (reg) ran a guest commentary by an attorney named Henry Kopel (“My Colleagues Are Wrecking Health Care”) who is married to an obstetrician/gynecologist and who begins his column: “I am an attorney, and I am ashamed of what my profession is doing to health care in America.” (reprinted: Connecticut College of Emergency Physicians). And here are a couple more medical-liability sites we haven’t previously noted: Doctors for Medical Liability Reform (various physician specialty groups), Protect Access to Care & Treatment (American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons).
Your laptop? Hand it over
Yet another hazard of modern divorce: the judge may forbid you to use, alter or even turn on your personal computer — work files and all — lest you erase or overwrite some email or spreadsheet that your hubby might want to hold against you. “Stamford Superior Court Judge Kevin Tierney recently took the highly unusual step of ordering Mary Ranta to stop using her laptop altogether and immediately turn it over to the court clerk’s office. … Tierney said his goal was to preserve electronic data for discovery.” (Thomas B. Scheffey, “Lockdown Ordered for Laptop”, Connecticut Law Tribune, Mar. 16).
Update: court OKs “ghost blurber” case, Sony likely to settle
After a California court of appeals ruled that a class action could go forward against Sony Pictures over its use of quotes from “ghost blurber” David Manning, the company said it was preparing to settle the case. (see Jun. 12, 2001). Judge Reuben Ortega, dissenting from his colleagues’ decision to let the suit proceed, wrote: “This is the most frivolous case with which I have ever had to deal. Imagine the great contribution this case will make to our quality of life and to justice in America. … A new day will dawn from which time no one will ever again be fooled by a promotion touting a movie as the greatest artistic accomplishment of the ages. From that day on, all persons will be able to absolutely rely on the truth and accuracy of movie ads. No longer will people be seen lurching like mindless zombies toward the movie theatre, compelled by a puff piece. … I cannot see breathing life into this farce. We should be occupying ourselves with resolving legitimate disputes instead of laughable cases designed not to gain anything for the plaintiffs, but rather to generate fees for the only true beneficiaries of this disgrace, the attorneys.” (opinion in PDF format).
Last year, Sony agreed to pay the state of Connecticut $325,000 following an investigation by grandstanding state AG Richard Blumenthal. The Connecticut connection that Blumenthal seized on? Well, it was that the (fictitious) Manning had been said to work for a (real) newspaper in Connecticut, the Ridgefield Press. “When the scandal was revealed, the Ridgefield Press demanded only an apology from Sony, which it got. ‘We’re not interested in grubbing money,’ [executive editor Jack] Sanders said. ‘A lot of people suggested we sue, but we’re not that kind of people. We just hope they don’t subpoena us to fly out and testify, unless they’re going to pay for transportation.'” (Emanuella Grinberg, “Moviegoers to settle with studio after being lured by phony critic”, CourtTV, Mar. 8). Update Aug. 3, 2005: Sony settles for $1.5 million.
Probe of Connecticut tobacco deal
Picking up where our Feb. 24 posting left off: “The House committee that will decide whether to recommend the impeachment of Gov. John G. Rowland is examining a Waterbury law firm, one of four firms that brought Connecticut’s 1996 class-action suit against the tobacco industry and shared $65 million in fees.” The state’s attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, said: “I can tell you unequivocally that politics had nothing to do with this decision [to hire the Carmody firm]”. Such a card, that AG Blumenthal! (Stacey Stowe, “Impeachment Panel Examining Law Firm”, New York Times, Mar. 3)