Kevin Heller of TechLawAdvisor doesn’t want us coming after him (Feb. 14). Our correspondence with Santa Barbara skin artist Pat Fish regarding tattoo disclaimers amused New York attorney and tattoo-muse Marisa Kakoulas, writing at BM Ezine (“Waivers and Releases for Tattoo and Piercing Studios”, Feb. 27). And Best’s Review, the insurance industry publication, quoted me a while back commenting on the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear an appeal in a punitive damages case involving State Farm (R.J. Lehmann, “Briefing: Supreme Court puts State Farm case to rest”, Nov. 1, subscriber-only).
Posts Tagged ‘State Farm’
Update: Boeken award chopped
Following guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in State Farm v. Campbell, a California appeals court has ruled that the original $3 billion punitive award against Philip Morris, voted by a jury in 2001 in Richard Boeken’s lawsuit, cannot properly exceed $50 million. Plaintiff’s lawyer Michael Piuze expressed discontent at having to settle for such a measly sum. (Mike McKee, “Court Chops More off $3 Billion Award in Philip Morris Case”, The Recorder, Sept. 22; see Jun. 8-10, Jun. 11 and Jun. 19, 2001). Jim Copland has more at Point of Law (Sept. 22).
Appeals court slashes Romo punitives
“A California appeals court has cut a record $290 million punitive-damages verdict to $23.7 million for a Ford Bronco rollover accident that killed three people.” The decision in Romo v. Ford Motor is the largest award reduction yet following guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court in its April decision in a punitive damages case against State Farm. (David Kravets, “Court reduces $290 million verdict against Ford to $23.7 million”, AP/San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 25). “As we read State Farm ? the legitimate state goal that punitive damages may seek to achieve is the ‘condemnation of such conduct’ as has resulted in ‘outrage and humiliation’ to the plaintiffs before the court,” Justice Steven Vartabedian wrote for [a unanimous panel of California’s 5th District Court of Appeal]. “It is not a permissible goal to punish a defendant for everything it may have done wrong.” (Mike McKee, “Punitive Damages Take Big Hit”, The Recorder, Nov. 26). The Romo trial itself in 1999 was remarkable for its combination of brazenly demagogic plaintiff’s arguments and bizarre jury deliberations: see Aug. 24, 1999, Sept. 17-19, 1999, Aug. 27, 2002 and more recent links. Update Feb. 15: case settles.
Auto insurance won’t cover rape
Updating our story of Mar. 27-28, 2002: the Colorado Supreme Court by a 4-3 margin has reversed lower court decisions that ordered State Farm to pay auto insurance benefits to a woman who was kidnapped and raped in her car. (Sean Kelly, Denver Post, Oct. 15). Plus: Curmudgeonly Clerk has more (Oct. 18).
Update: Madison County
Notorious Madison County (e.g., Mar. 24, Sep. 26, and too many other entries on this blog to list), across the river from St. Louis, continues to make news. The Illinois Supreme Court is reconsidering the state’s venue rules in the Madison County case of Gridley v. State Farm Insurance in the wake of the county’s reputation as a home for plaintiffs’ venue-shopping. In Gridley, the plaintiff is from Louisiana, all of the percipient witnesses in the case are in Louisiana, the defendant’s headquarters are in Bloomington in central Illinois, but the “plaintiffs say in documents that Madison County is the proper venue because two Madison County residents who have worked for State Farm will be called to testify about how the company handles salvage titles.” (Kevin McDermott, “Big companies aim to dent county’s popularity as venue for lawsuits”, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sep. 13). The Belleville News-Democrat explores the role of plaintiffs’ lawyers’ money in Madison County. (Mike Fitzgerald, “Where money talks”, Oct. 5; see also David Bailey, “Illinois county court a corporate ‘hellhole'”, Reuters, Oct. 5). The consequences are real for the laypeople of Madison County: doctors are closing shop as medical malpractice insurance rates triple. (Shawn Clubb, “Another doctor leaving Alton”, The Telegraph, Oct. 4). But the class actions continue: Mattel finds itself a defendant to plaintiffs complaining that the “limited edition” Barbie dolls weren’t sufficiently limited, though they acknowledge that Mattel disclosed that it would make up to 35,000 of them. Plaintiffs are trying to keep the case before Judge Kardis, who issued the original decision permitting venue in Gridley. (Beth Hundsdorffer, “Litigation Barbie”, Belleville News-Democrat, Oct. 5).
Archived class action materials, pre-July 2003
Madison County, Ill., 2003: “To tame Madison County, pass the Class Action Fairness Act“, Jun. 12-15; “The intimidation tactics of Madison County“, Jun. 9; “‘Lawyers who won $10 bil. verdict had donated to judge’“, Apr. 30; “A bond too far“, Apr. 4-6; “Appeals bonds, again“, Apr. 2-3; “Mad County pays out again” (“light” cigarette class action), Mar. 24. 2002: “Malpractice-crisis latest: let ’em become CPAs“, Oct. 7-8; “Intel sued in notorious county“, Aug. 30-Sept. 2. 2000: “Update: Publishers’ Clearing House case“, Feb. 29. 1999: “Criticizing lawyers proves hazardous” (columnist Bill McClellan makes fun of class-action attorneys, they sue him for libel), Nov. 4 (& Nov. 30; Feb. 29, 2000)
Securities class actions, 2003: “Prospering despite reform“, May 5; “‘Lawyers find gold mine in Phila. pension cases’“, Mar. 21-23; “NYC challenges class action fees; taxpayers save $200 million“, Feb. 28-Mar. 2 (& Jun. 20, 2000). 2002: “Updates” (Ninth Circuit ruling), Oct. 1-2; “Second Circuit: we mean business about stopping frivolous securities suits“, Aug. 29-Sept. 2; “Financial scandals: legislate in haste“, Jul. 12-14; “‘How to stuff a wild Enron’“, Apr. 22; “Judge compares class action lawyers to ‘squeegee boys’“, Apr. 18. 2001: “Short-sellers had right to a drop in stock price“, Nov. 12; “Third Circuit cuts class action fees” (Cendant, CBS/ Westinghouse), Sept. 25-26 (& on Cendant, June 20, Sept. 4, 2000); “Dotcom wreckage: sue ’em all“, Aug. 7-8; “‘2d Circuit Upholds Sanctions Against Firms for Frivolous Securities Claims’” (Schoengold & Sporn), July 23; “Razorfish, Cisco, IPO suits“, May 22; “Securities law: time for loser-pays“, Mar. 2-4; “3Com prevails in shareholder suit“, Feb. 21-22; “$1,000/hour for shareholder class lawyers” (Aetna case), Feb. 14-15; “What they did for lead-plaintiff status?“, Jan. 18 (& see Feb. 21-22). 2000: “Did securities-law reform fail?“, Nov. 10-12; “Emulex fraud: gotta find a defendant“, Sept. 4; “Fortune on Lerach“, Aug. 16-17; “Lion’s share” (commodity brokerage case), May 5-7; “Fee shrinkage“, May 3; “Celera stockholders vent at Milberg Weiss“, Apr. 25-26. 1999: “Piggyback suit not entitled to piggybank contents” (Second Circuit rejects fees in Texaco action), Oct. 9-10; “Effects of shareholder-suit reform“, Sept. 22.
Fee review, 2003: “Vitamin class action: some questions for the lawyers“, May 28; “Sauce for the gander dept.“, May 19; “NYC challenges class action fees; taxpayers save $200 million“, Feb. 28-Mar. 2 (& Jun. 20, 2000). 2002: “FTC cracks down on excessive legal fees“, Oct. 1-2; “Smog fee case: ‘unreal world of greed’“, Jul. 24. 2001: “Court’s chutzpah-award nominee” (Wells Fargo), Oct. 17-18; “Third Circuit cuts class action fees” (Cendant, CBS/ Westinghouse), Sept. 25-26 (& on Cendant, June 20, Sept. 4, 2000); “Coupon settlement? Pay the lawyers in coupons“, Mar. 16-18. 2000: “Fee shrinkage“, May 3; “‘Accord tossed: Class members ‘got nothing’” (Equifax, 7th Circuit), Jan. 6. 1999: “Class action fee control: it’s not just a good idea, it’s the law” (Ninth Circuit on “separately negotiated” fees), Nov. 30; “Piggyback suit not entitled to piggybank contents” (2nd Circuit, Texaco), Oct. 9-10.
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 2003: “Prospering despite reform“, May 5; “Milberg copyrights its complaints“, Jan. 3-6. 2002: “Updates” (Ninth Circuit ruling), Oct. 1-2; “Smog fee case: ‘unreal world of greed’“, Jul. 24 (& Dec. 5, 2000, Jun. 22-24, 2001); “Judge compares class action lawyers to ‘squeegee boys’“, Apr. 18; “Milberg faces second probe” (Phila. politics), Feb. 27-28; “‘Probe of Milberg Weiss has bar buzzing’“, Jan. 28-29; “‘In a class of his own’” (Melvyn Weiss profiled in The Economist), Jan. 21-22. 2001: “NFL satellite ticket class action“, June 5 (& update Aug. 20-21: court disallows settlement); “Update: cookie lawsuit crumbles“, May 9; “‘Lawyers to Get $4.7 Million in Suit Against Iomega’” (zip drive defect allegations), May 8; “California electricity linkfest” (representing San Francisco), March 26; “(Another) ‘Monster Fee Award for Tobacco Fighters’” (Calif. cities and counties), March 21-22; “3Com prevails in shareholder suit“, Feb. 21-22; “$1,000/hour for shareholder class lawyers” (Aetna case), Feb. 14-15; “What they did for lead-plaintiff status?“, Jan. 18 (& see Feb. 21-22). 2000: “Fortune on Lerach“, Aug. 16-17; “Fee shrinkage“, May 3; “Celera stockholders vent at Milberg Weiss“, Apr. 25-26; “Class-actioneers’ woes“, Mar. 1; “Pokemon litigation roundup“, Jan. 10 (& Oct. 1-3, Oct. 13, 1999).
Toshiba laptop settlement: see separate page on high-tech law.
Microsoft class actions: “Microsoft case and AG contributions“, Apr. 3-4, 2002; “Columnist-fest” (proposed settlement), Nov. 27, 2001; “Hiring talent from the opposing camp“, Feb. 28, 2000; “In race to sue Microsoft, some trip“, Dec. 23-26; “Microsoft roundup“, Dec. 3-5; “‘Actions without class’“, Dec. 2; “Class actions vs. high-tech“, Nov. 23; “Vice President gets an earful“, Nov. 22; “Microsoft roundup“, Nov. 17; “Fins circle in water“, Nov. 13-14; “Microsoft roundup“, Nov. 11; “Microsoft ruling: guest editorials“, Nov. 8; “Why doesn’t Windows cost more?“, Oct. 27; “Are you sure you want to delete ‘Microsoft’?“, Oct. 11.
Employment class actions: see separate page on employment law.
|
Overlawyered.com commentaries: “Texas’s giant legal reform“, Jun. 18-19, 2003. “To tame Madison County, pass the Class Action Fairness Act“, Jun. 12-15, 2003; “‘Reforming class action suits’” (Class Action Fairness Act), Apr. 25-27, 2003. “Judge kicks class-action lawyers off case” (H&R Block), May 15, 2003. “Class action lawyer takes $20 million from defendant’s side“, Mar. 15-16, 2003. “FBI probes Philadelphia’s hiring of class action firm“, Jan. 31-Feb. 2, 2003. “Ninth Circuit panel sniffs collusion in bias settlement fees“, Dec. 16-17, 2002. Auctions: “Third Circuit cuts class action fees“, Sept. 25-26, 2001; “Letter to the editor” (competitive bidding for class representation), Jun. 13, 2001 (& Oct. 1-2, 2002). “7,000 missing colors, many of them crisply green“, Aug. 29, 2002. “‘Junk-fax’ suit demands $2 trillion“, Aug. 26, 2002; “Junk-fax litigation: blood in the water“, July 24, 2001; “Junk-fax bonanza“, March 27, 2001; “Junk fax litigation, continued“, March 3-5, 2000; “In Houston, expensive menus” (unsolicited faxes), Oct. 22, 1999. “Penthouse sued on behalf of disappointed Kournikova-oglers“, Jun. 3-4, 2002. “The mystery of the transgenic corn“, May 14-15, 2002. “Editorial-fest“, Mar. 11, 2002; “Washington Post on class action reform” (good editorial), Aug. 29-30, 2001; “Actions without class” (Washington Post editorial), Dec. 2, 1999. “The thrill of it all: plaintiffs win 28 cent coupon“, Feb. 27-28, 2002. “‘Toyota buyers’ suit yields cash — for lawyers’“, Feb. 18-19, 2002; “Golf ball class action” (Acushnet Co.), Nov. 18-19, 1999; “Class action coupon clippers” (Washington Post on settlement abuses), Nov. 15, 1999. “‘Congress looks to change class action system’“, Feb. 11-12, 2002; “‘They’re making a federal case out of it … in state court’“, Nov. 7-8, 2001. “Selling out the class?” (allegations of collusive settlement in H&R Block case), April 5, 2001 (& see Dec. 3). “Swiss banks vindicated“, Nov. 1, 2001. Letter to the editor (lawyers’ own incremental billing disclosed?), Oct. 22, 2001 (& see Dec. 3). “Counterterrorism bill footnote” (forum shopping), Oct. 16, 2001; “Best little forum-shopping in Texas” (class actions make their way to Texarkana), August 27, 1999. “Employment class actions: EEOC to the rescue“, Sept. 10, 2001. “220 percent rate of farmer participation” (USDA black farmer settlement), July 25, 2001. “The rest of Justice O’Connor’s speech“, July 6-8, 2001. “Blockbuster Video class action“, June 11, 2001 (& see July 3-4 (Vince Carroll column)). “Letter to the editor” (First USA credit cards), June 13, 2001; “Bank error in your favor” (credit card holders), Sept. 27-28, 2000; & letter to the editor, Sept. 3, 2001. “Ghost blurber case“, June 12, 2001. “NFL satellite ticket class action“, June 5, 2001 (& update Aug. 20-21: court disallows settlement). “Insurance class settlement scuttled“, Feb. 26, 2001. “Florida lawyers’ day jobs, cont’d” (hotbed of class action filing), Dec. 11-12, 2000; “Florida’s legal talent, before the Chad War” (Florida Marlins ticketholders), Dec. 8-10, 2000. “Obese soldiers class action“, Nov. 10-12, 2000. “Sweepstakes, for sure” (American Family Publishers), Oct. 20-22, 2000; “Update: Publishers’ Clearing House case“, Feb. 29, 2000. “Courtroom crusade on drug prices?“, Oct. 19, 2000. “Class actions: are we all litigants yet?“, Aug. 23-24, 2000. Coke: “Class-action lawyers to Coke clients: you’re fired“, July 21-23, 2000; “‘Coke plaintiff eavesdrops on lawyers; case unravels’” (what do lawyers tell each other after they think their clients have hung up on the conference call?), July 19-20; “‘Ad deal links Coke, lawyer in suit’” (Willie Gary, suing Coke, cuts lucrative ad deal with it), May 11, 2000. “Target Detroit” (lawyers countersue DaimlerChrysler and exec personally), July 19-20, 2000; “Turning the tables” (DaimlerChrysler sues class action lawyers), Nov. 12, 1999. “Class-action assault on eBay“, July 13, 2000. “AOL ‘pop-up’ class action” (ads said to be unfair), June 27, 2000. “Rise, fall, and rise of class actions” (enormous increase in filing rates in past decade), Mar. 10-12, 2000. “Criticizing lawyers proves hazardous” (columnist Bill McClellan makes fun of class-action attorneys, they sue him for libel), Nov. 4, 1999 (update Nov. 30: he criticizes them again, though suit is still pending); “Update: Publishers’ Clearing House case” (judge approves settlement including legal fee request; agreement reached to end libel suit), Feb. 29, 2000. “Secrets of class action defense“, Feb. 25, 2000; “Mobile Register probes class action biz” (BancBoston and other mortgage escrow cases), Feb. 7, 2000. “AOL upgrade’s sharp elbows“, Feb. 12-13, 2000. “Weekend reading: columnist-fest” (Laura Pulfer on suit against Ralph Lauren outlet stores; Alex Cockburn on Swiss banks), Feb. 5-6, 2000. “From our mail sack: unclear on the concept“, Jan. 28, 2000. “Santa came late” (suit against Toys-R-Us for missing Christmas delivery), Jan. 19, 2000. “Pokemon litigation roundup“, Jan. 10, 2000; “Pokemon cards update“, Oct. 13, 1999; “Pokemon-card class actions“, Oct. 1-3, 1999 “Expert witnesses and their ghostwriters” (life insurance class actions), Jan. 4, 2000. “Lawyers for famine and wilderness-busting?” (anti-biotech), Jan. 3, 1999. “Class action toy story” (antitrust), Dec. 29-30, 1999. “‘In race to sue Microsoft, some trip’” (lawyers inadvertently copy details of pleadings in earlier cases), Dec. 23-26, 1999. “Rolling the dice, cont’d” (suits over online gambling), Dec. 7, 1999 (earlier report, Aug. 26). “Beware of market crashes” (class action sought against E*Trade for alleged computer-related trading losses), Nov. 26-28, 1999. “Are they kidding, or not-kidding?” (proposals for suits against makers of fattening foods, losing sports teams), Nov. 15, 1999. “Public by 2-1 margin disapproves of tobacco suits” (if class actions are filed on behalf of the public, why don’t they reflect public opinion?), Nov. 5-7, 1999. “Demolition derby for consumer budgets” (class action against State Farm over generic crash parts), Oct. 8, 1999. “Power attracts power” (Boies joins anti-HMO effort), Sept. 30, 1999; “Impending assault on HMOs“, Sept. 30. “$49 million lawyers’ fee okayed in case where clients got nothing” (secondhand smoke action), Sept. 28, 1999; “Personal responsibility takes a vacation in Miami” (tobacco class-action verdict), Jul. 8, 1999. “Judge throws out four WWII reparations lawsuits“, Sept. 20, 1999. “Tainted cycle” (Milwaukee taxpayers sue themselves), Sept. 2, 1999. “Three insurers sued for $100 million” (how the press covers class action announcements), Aug. 20, 1999. Resources on class actions are found at many different places on Overlawyered.com. For example, most of the massive lawsuits filed against individual industries over personal injury to classes of consumers are covered on pages specific to the subject matter of the cases, such as the pages on firearms litigation, tobacco litigation, managed-care litigation, breast implant litigation, product liability, and so forth. This page assembles resources on class actions as a procedural device and as an institution. Among topics covered are the unique role in this area of an “entrepreneurial” plaintiff’s bar that decides on its own behalf who and how to sue and lines up clients as needed; the history of the device and the reasons why it is either sharply limited or virtually unknown in the courts of other industrial democracies; the distinctive ethical problems that arise because of the extreme difficulty of policing lawyers’ faithfulness to the interests of the absent class; and the operations of the class action “industry” in the areas in which it has been a familiar part of the American legal landscape for decades, namely shareholder litigation and class actions over consumer and antitrust grievances aggregating large numbers of (usually smallish) claims. Background — procedural history, ethical issues: Overlawyered.com‘s editor wrote about class actions (as well as “champerty and maintenance”, the “invisible-fist theory”, and other topics) in Chapter 3 of his book The Litigation Explosion; an excerpt is online. Chapter 5 (“The New Town Meeting”) of Peter Huber’s book Liability: The Legal Revolution and Its Consequences contains a valuable discussion of the class action format, particularly as it applies to the so-called toxic tort; it is unfortunately not online. Lawrence Schonbrun, a Northern California attorney who has developed a specialty in filing challenges to excessive class action attorneys’ fee requests, wrote a prescient article in 1996 on “coupon deals”, “separately negotiated” fees from defendants, and other innovative ways the class action bar was finding to escape scrutiny of its remuneration. (“Class Actions: The New Ethical Frontier“) Shareholder litigation: A starting point for research on this topic is Stanford Law School’s comprehensive Securities Class Action Clearinghouse. See also the commentaries on this site. In Felzen v. Andreas (1998), Judge Frank Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit wrote that “Many thoughtful students of the subject conclude, with empirical support, that derivative actions do little to promote sound management and often hurt the firm by diverting the managers’ time from running the business while diverting the firm’s resources to the plaintiffs’ lawyers without providing a corresponding benefit.” He cited a long list of scholarly articles including Janet Cooper Alexander, Do the Merits Matter? A Study of Settlements in Securities Class Actions, 43 Stanford L. Rev. 497 (1991), which found that the “structural characteristics common to securities class actions . . . combine to produce outcomes that are not a function of the substantive merits of the case.” and Roberta Romano, The Shareholder Suit: Litigation without Foundation?, 7 J. L. Econ. & Organization 55 (1991), which examined 39 shareholder suits filed between the late 1960s and 1987 and concluded that “shareholder litigation is a weak, if not ineffective, instrument of corporate governance.” In 1995 Congress passed the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which aimed to rectify some of the worst abuses in the field. This client memo from Fried, Frank describes the wider powers institutional investors obtained under the act to influence litigation going on purportedly in the name of investors such as themselves. In Polar International Brokerage v. Reeve, a New York federal judge rejected a proposed class action settlement and request for $200,000 in attorneys’ fees, saying it offered shareholders “nothing of real value”. (Deborah Pines, National Law Journal, May 24, 1999). Although the securities bar frequently alleges that well-known companies in Silicon Valley and elsewhere are run by crooked managements that fleece their shareholders, they ironically turn out to keep a lot of their (very substantial) stock holdings invested in the very same companies. (Paul Elias, San Francisco Recorder, June 8, 1999). Among the reasons is that in many cases they have accepted stock as payment for dropping earlier legal actions. Other class action resources: The Federalist Society publishes a Class Action Watch newsletter. The first issue is in conventional web-page format. The second issue is a PDF document (Adobe Acrobat needed to view; get it here). Among the better-known law firms representing class action plaintiffs are Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Cohen Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, Krause & Kalfayan, and Barrack, Rodos & Bacine. Actuary Jack Patterson has written an account for a plaintiff’s lawyer readership of class actions against life insurance companies, one of the big practice areas of the 1990s. The class action bar also files many antitrust suits on behalf of large groups of consumers or business purchasers. The Antitrust Policy web site collects many worthwhile resources on antitrust law. Archived auto items, pre-July 2003Leasing liability: “‘Silver’s wreck’“, Jun. 9, 2003; “Auto-lease liability: deeper into crisis“, May 21; “‘Automakers may stop leasing vehicles in N.Y.’“, Mar. 12-14, 2003; “R.I.: No more cheap car leases?“, Aug. 26, 2002. “Steering the evidence” (DaimlerChrysler gets sanctions against lawyers for evidence and witness tampering), May 23, 2000 (& updates Jun. 26, 2000, Mar. 17, 2003). “‘The Lawyers Are Lurking Over S.U.V.’s’“, Jan. 9, 2003. “Ford didn’t push pedal extenders, suit says“, Feb. 27-28, 2002 (& letter to the editor, Apr. 11). “‘Drunken Driver’s Widow Wins Court’s OK To Sue Carmaker’” (VW), Feb. 25-26, 2002. “Chrysler dodges a $250 million dart“, Dec. 7-9, 2001; “Miami jury to Ford: pay $15 million after beltless crash“, Sept. 24, 2001. “Disclaimer rage?” (GPS software), Oct. 15, 2001. “When trial lawyers help redesign cars” (Thornburgh on GM trucks), Aug. 6, 2001. Airbags: “‘Airbag chemical on trial’“, Aug. 14, 2000; “Deflated“, May 16, 2000; and see Oct. 20-22, 2000 (Henry Payne cartoon). “Drive 60K miles, collect $273K“, Jan. 9, 2001; “Tales from the tow zone” (verdict against Chrysler), Oct. 31, 2000. “Highway responsibility” (GM sued in Derrick Thomas speeding-on-ice crash), Nov. 28, 2000. “Product liability criminalized?“, Oct. 20-22, 2000. “Target Detroit” (mass litigation; S.U.V.’s; class action firm countersues DaimlerChrysler and exec personally), Jul. 19-20, 2000; “Turning the tables” (DaimlerChrysler sues class action lawyers), Nov. 12, 1999. “Nader on the Corvair“, July 13, 2000; “Nader, controversial at last“, June 13, 2000; “Deflated“, May 16, 2000. “Sudden deceleration” (NHTSA rejects petition for sudden-acceleration probe), Jun. 6, 2000. “‘Saints, sinners and the Isuzu Trooper’“, April 14-16, 2000; “Verdict on Consumer Reports: false, but not damaging” (Isuzu v. Consumers Union), Apr. 10, 2000. “$65 million Texas verdict: driver at twice the legal blood limit” (drunk driver’s estate sues Honda over seat belt), Mar. 28, 2000. “‘Motorists speed more, but fewer die’“, Feb. 19-21, 2000. “GM verdict roundup” (Anderson v. General Motors fallout continues), Dec. 16, 1999; “L.A. judge cuts award against GM to $1.2 billion“, Aug. 27, 1999; “In L.A., redesigning the Chevy” ($5 billion Malibu gas tank verdict), Jul. 10, 1999 (& see update Aug. 3, 2003, case settled on undisclosed terms). “Toshiba and Ford, in the same boat“, Dec. 2, 1999. “‘Wretched excesses of liability lawsuits’” (David Boldt, Philadelphia Inquirer), Nov. 29, 1999. “Responsibility, RIP” (columnist Mona Charen), Nov. 2, 1999. “Zone of blame” (policeman shot in his cruiser, automaker sued), Oct. 27, 1999. “Rhode Island A.G.: let’s do latex gloves next” (speed governors on cars), Oct. 26, 1999. “The art of blame” (Ford sued after child left in parked van in sun dies of overheating), Oct. 20, 1999. “Demolition derby for consumer budgets” (class action against State Farm over generic crash parts), Oct. 8, 1999. “Yes, it is personal” (automotive engineers take design-defect suits as personal accusations), Oct. 7, 1999. “Too many games at GM?” (Atlanta ruling on Ivey memo controversy), September 10, 1999. “Do as we say (II): gun-suit hypocrisy in Detroit” (gun- and automakers both sued after criminal misuse of their products), Aug. 30, 1999. [additional essay on auto design liability here] |