The number of toxic tort cases has increased dramatically over the last thirty years, as a result of rising awareness of (and activism over) injuries caused by environmental pollutants and unsafe products. Due to the nature of chemical accidents and the long latency periods of many diseases associated with toxic substances, large populations often are exposed to toxics. As a result, many toxic tort lawsuits are brought as class actions. Examples of toxic tort litigation in recent years include cases stemming from Agent Orange use in Viet Nam, toxic waste disposal in the Love Canal area of New York, radiation from the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident, and the chemical cloud released by the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India.
If you look at your auto insurance contract, you'll notice a provision that if your car is damaged in an accident, your insurer doesn't have to pay you more than your auto is worth. If it would cost more to fix the car than a certain percentage of the car's value, your insurer will consider your car a total loss, i.e., "total" it. All you'll be able to get is a check for the value of the car. This is bad, because it usually won't be enough to replace your car, and it won't be enough to fix it. Plus, if you get back your car and use the money to fix it, insurers may refuse to provide more than basic liability coverage on it.
[06/19]
Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. In a class action against DaimlerChrysler alleging that it breached express and implied warranties and committed fraud in the sale of certain Dodge Neon cars containing defective head gaskets, dismissal and summary judgment rulings for defendant are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to allege that his Dodge Neon failed to perform as expressly warranted; 2) an implied warranty claim failed as plaintiff was not in vertical privity with DaimlerChrysler as required by state law; 3) thus, state law and the Magnuson-Moss Act claims were properly dismissed; 4) the statute of limitations barred a fraud claim; and 5) an Unfair Competition Law claim failed as defendant's conduct was not unfair within the meaning of the statute, and there was insufficient evidence that the gasket's failure rate was material to a reasonable consumer.
[06/13]
Natural Answers, Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp. In a trademark infringement case involving claims against defendants for the advertisement of certain health products, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the record unequivocally demonstrated that plaintiff did not own a valid trademark interest for claims of infringement brought under the Lanham Act; 2) plaintiff did not suffer injury for prudential standing to assert a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act; and 3) in light of plaintiff's insufficient interest and lack of judicial standing, plaintiff's claims also failed under alternative common law theories which require elements plaintiff could not prove.
[05/27]
Gerlinger v. Amazon.com Inc. In an antitrust action challenging a marketing agreement between the booksellers Amazon.com and Borders, dismissal of the action is affirmed where plaintiff lacked standing because he did not show that he ever purchased an item for a higher price than he would have paid had there been no marketing agreement, and thus he had suffered no injury-in-fact.
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.
