Using A Contractual Consequential Damage Limitation
|
|
- Christian Sharp
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY Phone: Fax: Using A Contractual Consequential Damage Limitation Law360, New York (October 13, 2011, 3:03 PM ET) -- A consequential damage limitation can be a useful tool in limiting a party s product liability exposure. The consequential damage limitation is commonly used in construction contracts but may also be used in contracts for the sale of goods. When combined with the economic loss doctrine, a properly drafted consequential damage limitation can shield a manufacturer from millions of dollars in liability stemming from personal injury, property damage and other economic losses. Although a useful tool, a provision that limits consequential damages creates its own unique challenges, including enforceability and defining consequential damages. This article discusses the strategies a defendant should use and the hurdles defendants must overcome to defend a product liability action using the economic loss doctrine and a contractual consequential damage limitation. For illustrative purposes, this article uses as an example a defendant manufacturer, who supplies industrial equipment that is classified as a good under the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ), to another commercial entity, that uses the equipment in a production facility to manufacture a consumer good. The defendant manufacturer employs a consequential damage limitation in its agreement with the commercial buyer, which limits the defendant manufacturer s exposure stemming from the failure of the product to the buyer s direct damages, excluding all consequential damages. Due to a defect in the product, an explosion occurs, which destroys the product and also causes damage to the production facility. This example is useful because a failure in the equipment may cause a host of different types of damages, including damage to the supplied equipment itself, damage to the facility, personal injury, business interruption, lost revenues/profits, and losses suffered from the inability of the buyer to fulfill third-party contracts. The Economic Loss Doctrine Although not directly related to the consequential damage limitation, the first step when preparing for a product liability defense in most scenarios should be attempting to dismiss all tort claims under the economic loss doctrine. The economic loss doctrine prevents plaintiffs from creating a tort action where there is otherwise nothing more than a contract claim. Not only does the economic loss doctrine eliminate all tort actions, but, as discussed in the following sections, it also provides for an easier application of the consequential damage limitation.
2 The economic loss doctrine provides that where the only damage suffered is loss stemming from the commercial failure of the product at issue, the plaintiff is limited to contract forms of recovery. A.J. Decoster Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 333 Md. 245, 634 A.2d 1330 (1994). In other words, unless the plaintiff can show damage to a person or to property other than the product itself, the plaintiff may not maintain a tort action. Id. at , 634 A.2d at Take the above example but assume that there was no damage to the facility; only the equipment was damaged. Further assume that the production facility was shut down while the defective product was being replaced. Under these facts, the only damages suffered by the plaintiff are the damages to the product itself and the revenues or profits lost due to the fact that the facility was shut down for a period of time. Under these facts, the defendant should be able to dismiss all tort claims under the economic loss doctrine. Additionally, the economic loss defense does not fail simply because there is damage to property other than the product itself. Some states have adopted a de minimis rule as it relates to damage to other property. See Delmarva Power & Light v. Meter-Treater Inc., 218 F.Supp.2d 564, (D. Del. 2002) (minor damage to automobiles was de minimis in light of millions of dollars in damage to electric meters); Florida Power & Light Co. v. McGraw Edison Co., 696 F. Supp. 617, 620 (S.D. Fla.1988). Using our hypothetical again, if the damage to the production facility is negligible in light of the total amount of damages, some courts will apply the economic loss doctrine because it would be unreasonable to allow an insignificant amount of damage to create a tort action where there is otherwise only a breach of contract claim. Rich Prod. Corp. v. Kemutec Inc., 66 F. Supp. 2d 937, (E.D. Wisc. 1999) (allowing tort recovery for de minimis damage allows the tail to wag the dog. It blurs the essential fact that this case is more about failed commercial expectations than it is about injuries to persons or property. ) There is a further exception that is particularly relevant to the industrial equipment example. Some courts have expanded their interpretation of the product itself to include the larger structure or facility into which the product is being integrated. Midwhey Powder Co. Inc. v. Clayton Indus., 157 Wis.2d 585, , 460 N.W.2d 426 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990) (damage to turbines caused by defect in generator down the line was found not to be other property within the meaning of the economic loss rule where the turbines connected to the generator as part of overall apparatus). Under the example, the defendant manufacturer could argue that the equipment supplied was built into a larger machine in a factory; therefore, the product is the entire industrial machine. This integrated system argument would appear to be a powerful tool, however, as discussed below, the defendant manufacturer may find itself making the opposite argument when enforcing the consequential damage limitation. Moreover, in making this argument, the defendant manufacturer may find itself responsible for the damages associated with replacing the entire integrated system, as opposed to replacing simply the product that it supplied. In addition to barring tort claims, the economic loss rule allows for an easier application of the consequential damage limitation. Once the plaintiff is limited to contract and warranty forms of recovery, the defendant can rely heavily upon Article 2 of the UCC. The UCC explicitly endorses contractual consequential damage limitations and provides some clarification as to which damages are direct and which damages are consequential.
3 Enforceability of a Contractual Provision Limiting Consequential Damages The enforceability of a consequential damage limitation is not usually a difficult hurdle for commercial entities to overcome, but it can never be considered an absolute certainty. The UCC states that *c+onsequential damages may be limited or excluded unless the limitation or exclusion is unconscionable. UCC (3) (2011). Outside the UCC context, courts will enforce consequential damage limitations unless the limitation is unconscionable, in violation of public policy or if enforcement of the provision causes the contract to fail of its essential purpose. See Taylor Inv. Corp. v. Weil, 169 F. Supp. 2d 1046, (D. Minn. 2001). A commercial plaintiff would have a difficult time claiming that a consequential damage limitation was unconscionable or failed of its essential purpose if the provision was reasonable and negotiated as part of an arms-length agreement. A manufacturer should, however, be wary of the enforceability of the provision against a consumer, Hartzell v. Justus Co. Inc., 693 F.2d 770 (8th Cir. 1982) (finding that consequential damage limitation in contract with consumer failed of its essential purpose), and most states will not allow a manufacturer to disclaim liability in the event of its own gross negligence, willful, wanton or intentional conduct. Kalisch-Jarcho Inc. v. New York, 58 N.Y.2d 377, 448 N.E.2d 413 (N.Y. 1983). Under the example above, the manufacturer defendant should not have difficulty enforcing the provision against a commercial buyer, but it should nonetheless take some precautions. Prior to entering into the agreement, the manufacturer should ensure that the damage limitation is negotiated at arm s length as part of the entire agreement. Laidlaw Environ. Servs. Inc. v. Honeywell Inc., 966 F.Supp. 1401, (D. S.C. 1996). From a drafting perspective, the consequential damage provision should be located in its own separate section, and it should be conspicuously placed in the agreement. JPS Elastometrics Corp. v. Industrial Tools Inc., 65 F.Supp.2d 376, 379 (W.D. Va. 1998). Finally, as discussed in greater detail below, the provision should define with clarity what the parties consider and agree are consequential damages. Defining Consequential Damages The next and most difficult step in defending a product liability action with a consequential damage limitation is defining consequential damage if no such definition is included in the agreement. A plaintiff is likely to allege a barrage of claims, including strict product liability, negligence, breach of contract and breach of warranty. In these claims, the definition of consequential damage typically comes from one of two sources: the UCC and the common law. The UCC Definition In the case of a buyer asserting a product liability claim against a seller, the UCC defines consequential damages as follows: (2) Consequential damages resulting from the seller s breach include (a) any loss resulting from general or particular requirements and needs of which the seller at the time of contracting had reason to know and which could not reasonably be prevented by cover or otherwise; and (b) injury to person or property proximately resulting from any breach of warranty
4 The definition contained in subsection (a) is difficult to pin down, but that may not necessarily be bad for the manufacturing defendant. Rather than focus on a particular category of damages, subsection (a) focuses on the seller s knowledge at the time of contracting. The defendant seller can argue that it had reason to know of the buyer s particular requirements, thereby increasing the amount of consequential damages excluded by the provision. This, however, is a double-edged sword. If the particular needs and requirements of the buyer were so apparent at the time of contracting, the court may find that the resultant damages were direct damages. Adding to the ambiguity, most courts employ a known or should have known standard under this subsection. Everett Plywood Corp. v. U.S., 512 F.2d 1082, 1091 (Ct. Cl. 1975). The should have known argument may increase the amount excluded; however, it also increases the likelihood that a claim would survive a dispositive motion on the consequential damage issue. One way to guard against this uncertainty is to add language to the agreement explicitly naming certain categories of damages as excluded under the limitation (i.e., lost profits, losses sustained under third-party contracts, personal injury, etc.) The simplest definition of consequential damage is subsection (b) related to breach of warranty claims. In a breach of warranty action, the buyer is entitled to the difference in the product as warranted, and the product supplied. UCC 2-714(2) (2011). Injury to a person or property is considered consequential. Id (2)(b); Signal Oil and Gas Co. v. Universal Oil Prods., 572 S.W.2d 320 (1978). This is the strongest language for the manufacturing defendant. This allows the manufacturing defendant to essentially exclude all damages except for the cost to repair or replace the defective product. Notice, however, that this argument is inconsistent with the integrated system argument discussed above. A commercial defendant may wish to forgo the integrated system argument under the economic loss doctrine and instead choose to call those losses other property excluded by the breach of warranty definition of consequential damage. The Common Law Definition The common law definition of consequential damage will vary by state, but it is generally a version of the definition stated in "Black s Law Dictionary." Consequential damages are those that do not flow directly and immediately from an injurious act but that result indirectly from the act. Black's Law Dictionary 416 (8th ed.2004); see also Hadley v. Baxendale, 156 ER 145 (1854). This definition leaves plenty of room for interpretation, but courts have reached some consensus on certain classifications of damages. Most courts hold that lost profits and other types of business interruption are consequential. See R.K. Chevrolet Inc. v. Hayden, 253 Va. 50, 56, 480 S.E.2d 477, 481 (Va. 1997); but see Mood v. Kronos Products Inc., 245 S.W.3d 8, 12 (Tex. Ct. App. 2007) (stating that lost profits may be direct or consequential). Personal injury is also generally consequential. Johnson v. Scandia Associates Inc., 717 N.E.2d 24, 31 (Ind. 1999). The cost of a substitute service or the cost of rental equipment is frequently considered consequential, as well. Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc., v. Garten, 94 Md. App. 547, 552, 618 A.2d 233, 235 (1993). The picture, however, is not as clear as it relates to other property. Using the example, it would seem illogical that the damage to the production facility did not flow directly and immediately from the explosion, yet this is what subsection (2)(b) of the UCC suggests.
5 Here, the defendant manufacturer is presented with competing definitions of consequential damage that dictate varying degrees of liability exposure. This underscores the importance of using the economic loss doctrine to eliminate all tort claims where possible. This ensures that the defendant manufacturer is able to rely upon the favorable provisions of the UCC. As suggested above, it would also be useful here to list the specific categories of damages that are disclaimed. Conclusion A consequential damage limitation that is bargained for between contracting parties can be a useful tool in limiting millions of dollars in potential product liability exposure. When drafting the provision, the drafter should conspicuously place the provision in the agreement. The drafter should also consider explicitly naming the categories of damages, which are covered by the provision, including lost profits, personal injury and damage to other property. Should litigation arise out of the failure of the product, the defendant manufacturer should first use the economic loss doctrine to eliminate all tort claims. Eliminating the tort claims will also limit the sources from which a plaintiff could draw upon the most favorable definition of consequential damage. The defendant manufacturer should rely heavily upon the favorable provisions in the UCC, in particular, upon the consequential damage definition for breach of warranty actions. This allows the defendant manufacturer to eliminate all damages other than those strictly related to the product itself. In this sense, the consequential damage limitation accomplishes what the economic loss doctrine cannot; it reduces what could otherwise be a tort claim with massive damages to a simple contract claim where the only damages at issue are the cost to repair or replace the product. In sum, a consequential damage limitation should be an essential provision in every agreement between commercial entities, especially where the potential exposure is limitless. --By Michael J. Halaiko (pictured) and Matthew P. Phelps, Miles & Stockbridge PC Michael Halaiko is a principal, and Matthew Phelps is an associate, in the products liability practice group in the Baltimore office of Miles & Stockbridge. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or Portfolio Media, publisher of Law360. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. All Content , Portfolio Media, Inc.
Recent Case: Sales - Limitation of Remedies - Failure of Essential Purpose [Adams v. J.I. Case Co., 125 Ill. App. 2d 368, 261 N.E.
Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 22 Issue 2 1971 Recent Case: Sales - Limitation of Remedies - Failure of Essential Purpose [Adams v. J.I. Case Co., 125 Ill. App. 2d 368, 261 N.E.2d 1 (1970)] Case
More informationA Duty To Warn For The Other Manufacturer's Product?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com A Duty To Warn For The Other Manufacturer's Product?
More informationA Damn Sham: When Opposition Motions Preclude Removal
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com A Damn Sham: When Opposition Motions Preclude Removal
More informationThink Twice About That Liability Disclaimer
Page 1 of 5 Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Think Twice About That Liability Disclaimer
More informationPRODUCT LIABILITY LAW: BASIC THEORIES AND RECENT TRENDS by John W. Reis, COZEN O CONNOR, Charlotte, North Carolina
PRODUCT LIABILITY LAW: BASIC THEORIES AND RECENT TRENDS by John W. Reis, COZEN O CONNOR, Charlotte, North Carolina I. INTRODUCTION What does it take to prove a product liability claim? Just because a fire
More informationExpansion Of Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Suppliers
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Expansion Of Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Suppliers
More informationFIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D17-2897 KEYSTONE AIRPARK AUTHORITY, Appellant, v. PIPELINE CONTRACTORS, INC., a Florida corporation; THE HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Hampshire
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 18 1823 SANCHELIMA INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., v. Plaintiffs Appellees, WALKER STAINLESS EQUIPMENT CO., LLC, et al., Defendants Appellants.
More informationStrict Liability and Product Liability PRODUCT LIABILITY WARRANTY LAW
Strict Liability and Product Liability PRODUCT LIABILITY The legal liability of manufacturers, sellers, and lessors of goods to consumers, users and bystanders for physical harm or injuries or property
More informationThe False Dilemma of the Economic Loss Doctrine
Marquette Law Review Volume 93 Issue 3 Article 5 The False Dilemma of the Economic Loss Doctrine Ralph A. Anzivino Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of
More informationa. The Act is effective July 4, 1975 and applies to goods manufactured after that date.
THE MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT AN OVERVIEW In 1975 Congress adopted a piece of landmark legislation, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The Act was designed to prevent manufacturers from drafting grossly
More informationEnforcing Exculpatory Provisions Against Meritless Claims
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Enforcing Exculpatory Provisions Against Meritless
More informationMaximize Your Contract s Exculpatory Provisions
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Maximize Your Contract s Exculpatory Provisions Law360,
More informationv No Macomb Circuit Court MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC and PRESTIGE
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S MIGUEL GOMEZ and M. G. FLOORING, Plaintiffs-Appellants, UNPUBLISHED February 20, 2018 v No. 335661 Macomb Circuit Court MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC
More informationThe Post-Alice Blend Of Eligibility And Patentability
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Post-Alice Blend Of Eligibility And Patentability
More informationPatent Damages Post Festo
Page 1 of 6 Patent Damages Post Festo Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Law360, New
More informationClass Action Exposure Post-Concepcion
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Class Action Exposure Post-Concepcion Law360, New
More informationCase 3:04-cv MLC-TJB Document 71 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 3:04-cv-02593-MLC-TJB Document 71 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 1 of 11 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : ASCH WEBHOSTING, INC., : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-2593 (MLC)
More informationDon't Overlook Pleading Challenges In State Pharma Suits
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Don't Overlook Pleading Challenges In State
More informationCharles Joswick, et ux. v. Chesapeake Mobile Homes, Inc., et al. No. 35, September Term, 2000
Charles Joswick, et ux. v. Chesapeake Mobile Homes, Inc., et al. No. 35, September Term, 2000 Warranty that goods will have certain quality or be free from certain defects for a specified period of time
More informationA Texas Framework For Extending The Economic Loss Rule
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com A Texas Framework For Extending The Economic Loss
More informationNovember The Shirt Off My Back: Using the Relationship Between a Product and a Service to Your Advantage
I suggest the following simple ten ways to avoid malpractice in litigation: q PRODUCT LIABILITY November 2012 IN THIS ISSUE In this newsletter the authors compare two cases in which courts reach different
More informationDELCHI CARRIER S.p.A. v. ROTOREX CORP. 71 F.3d 1024 (2d Cir. 1995)
DELCHI CARRIER S.p.A. v. ROTOREX CORP. 71 F.3d 1024 (2d Cir. 1995) WINTER, Circuit Judge: Rotorex Corporation, a New York corporation, appeals from a judgment of $1,785,772.44 in damages for lost profits
More informationPresent: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, and Lemons, JJ., and Carrico, S.J.
Present: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, and Lemons, JJ., and Carrico, S.J. PULTE HOME CORPORATION OPINION BY v. Record No. 021976 SENIOR JUSTICE HARRY L. CARRICO April 17, 2003 PAREX, INC.
More informationCrafting the Winning Argument in Spoliation Cases: And the Dog Ate Our Documents Isn t It
Crafting the Winning Argument in Spoliation Cases: And the Dog Ate Our Documents Isn t It Janelle L. Davis Thompson & Knight LLP 1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 969-1677 Janelle.Davis@tklaw.com
More informationMEMORANDUM ISSUE PRESENTED. Is there case law defining the manifestly unreasonable standard used in
MEMORANDUM Date: 12/5/2004 To: From: RE: Professor Kleinberger Maggie M. Tatton Manifestly Unreasonable ISSUE PRESENTED Is there case law defining the manifestly unreasonable standard used in various versions
More informationPatentee Forum Shopping May Be About To Change
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Patentee Forum Shopping May Be About To Change Law360,
More informationA look at UCC 1-103(b) through the lens of Article 2: A practice of liberal supplementation or exclusion?
A look at UCC 1-103(b) through the lens of Article 2: A practice of liberal supplementation or exclusion? American Bar Association Business Law Section April 15, 2011 Professor Jennifer Martin St. Thomas
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 63. September Term, PATTY MORRIS et al. OSMOSE WOOD PRESERVING et al.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 63 September Term, 1994 PATTY MORRIS et al. v. OSMOSE WOOD PRESERVING et al. Murphy, C.J. Eldridge Rodowsky Chasanow Karwacki Bell Raker, JJ. Dissenting Opinion
More informationADEL v. GREENSPRINGS OF VERMONT, INC. 363 F. Supp. 2d 692 (D. Vt. 2005) I. Introduction
ADEL v. GREENSPRINGS OF VERMONT, INC. 363 F. Supp. 2d 692 (D. Vt. 2005) SESSIONS, Chief Judge. I. Introduction The controversy here arose after plaintiff Leslie Adel suffered from a severe case of Legionnaires
More informationCalculating Contract Damages In A Volatile Market
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Calculating Contract Damages In A Volatile Market
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No
Case: 14-3270 Document: 003112445421 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 14-3270 In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI) CAROL J. ZELLNER,
More informationTorts - Liability for the Endorser of a Product - Hanberry v. Hearst Corp., Cal. App. 3rd, 81 Cal. Rptr. 519 (1969)
William & Mary Law Review Volume 11 Issue 3 Article 14 Torts - Liability for the Endorser of a Product - Hanberry v. Hearst Corp., Cal. App. 3rd, 81 Cal. Rptr. 519 (1969) Bruce E. Titus Repository Citation
More informationSTATUTES OF REPOSE. Presented by 2-10 Home Buyers Warranty on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders.
STATUTES OF Know your obligation as a builder. Educating yourself on your state s statutes of repose can help protect your business in the event of a defect. Presented by 2-10 Home Buyers Warranty on behalf
More informationExpectation Damages Now A Real Possibility In Delaware
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Expectation Damages Now A Real Possibility In Delaware
More informationS04Q2099. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. LOWE S HOME CENTERS, INC. The first question certified by the Eleventh Circuit in this case is whether
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: February 7, 2005 S04Q2099. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. LOWE S HOME CENTERS, INC. FLETCHER, Chief Justice. The first question certified by the Eleventh Circuit in
More information1 of 1 DOCUMENT. PULLMAN STANDARD, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ABEX CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL]
Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT PULLMAN STANDARD, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ABEX CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] Supreme Court of Tennessee, Middle Section, at Nashville 693 S.W.2d 336;
More informationCase 4:10-cv Document 40 Filed in TXSD on 06/07/10 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Case 4:10-cv-00171 Document 40 Filed in TXSD on 06/07/10 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION LONE STAR NATIONAL BANK, N.A., et al., CASE NO. 10cv00171
More informationVIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SOUTHWESTERN COUNTY 1
VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SOUTHWESTERN COUNTY 1 SMOOTH RIDE, INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 1234-567 IRONMEN CORP. d/b/a TUFF STUFF, INC. and STEEL-ON-WHEELS, LTD., Defendants. PLAINTIFF SMOOTH
More informationCreative and Legal Communities
AIPLA Mergers & Acquisition Committee Year in a Deal Lecture Series Beyond the Four Corners: A Discussion of the Impact of the Choice of New York, Delaware, Texas, and California Law in Contracts Carey
More informationIn Re: Asbestos Products
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-26-2016 In Re: Asbestos Products Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More information3 Tips For Understanding Price Fixing Conspiracy Liability
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 3 Tips For Understanding Price Fixing Conspiracy Liability
More informationData Breach Class Actions: Addressing Future Injury Risk
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Data Breach Class Actions: Addressing Future
More informationCase 2:12-cv Document 210 Filed 11/15/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 33896
Case 2:12-cv-03655 Document 210 Filed 11/15/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 33896 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION DONNA KAISER, et al., Plaintiffs,
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 96-CV-641. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationThe Application of the Doctrine of Unconscionability to Warranties: A Move Toward Strict Liability Within the U.C.C.
Fordham Law Review Volume 38 Issue 1 Article 13 1969 The Application of the Doctrine of Unconscionability to Warranties: A Move Toward Strict Liability Within the U.C.C. Recommended Citation The Application
More informationMARYLAND DEFENSE COUNSEL POSITION PAPER ON COMPARATIVE FAULT LEGISLATION
Contributory negligence has been the law of Maryland for over 150 years 1. The proponents of comparative negligence have no compelling reason to change the rule of contributory negligence. Maryland Defense
More informationAn Unreasonable Example of Reasonable Alternative Design? - Osorio v. One
An Unreasonable Example of Reasonable Alternative Design? - Osorio v. One World Technologies, Inc. Is a manufacturer required to make the safest possible product, even at the expense of design and function?
More informationv No Wayne Circuit Court REDFORD UNION HIGH SCHOOL, REDFORD
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S DEONTA JACKSON-JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 11, 2018 v No. 337569 Wayne Circuit Court REDFORD UNION HIGH SCHOOL, REDFORD LC
More informationBoston College Law Review
Boston College Law Review Volume 11 Issue 5 Number 5 Article 10 6-1-1970 Products Liability Statue of Limitations Application of the Contract Statute of Limitations to a Cause of Action for Strict Liability
More informationInsurers: New Tools To Remove CAFA Cases To Fed. Court
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Insurers: New Tools To Remove CAFA Cases To Fed. Court
More informationExamining The Statute Of Limitations In CFPB Cases: Part 2
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Examining The Statute Of Limitations In CFPB
More informationWho Pays for Delay? How Enforceable is a No Damage for Delay Clause?
Who Pays for Delay? How Enforceable is a No Damage for Delay Clause? Eugene Polyak Associate Fort Lauderdale, Florida T: 954.769.5335 E: gpolyak@smithcurrie.com Delays are an all too common occurrence
More informationJeffrey V. Hill Bodyfelt Mount LLP 707 Southwest Washington St. Suite 1100 Portland, Oregon (503)
Jeffrey V. Hill Bodyfelt Mount LLP 707 Southwest Washington St. Suite 1100 Portland, Oregon 97205 (503) 243-1022 hill@bodyfeltmount.com LIQUOR LIABILITY I. Introduction Liquor Liability the notion of holding
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON January 21, 2009 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON January 21, 2009 Session BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL and BAPTIST MEMORIAL HEALTH CARE CORPORATION v. ARGO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, HANSON PIPE & PRODUCTS
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT ORDER. Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge. HOWARD PILTCH, et al.. Plaintiffs - Appellants
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse Room 2722-219 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 Office of the Clerk Phone: (312) 435-5850
More informationThe Implications Of Twombly And PeaceHealth
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com The Implications Of Twombly And PeaceHealth
More informationTorts - Policeman as Licensee
William & Mary Law Review Volume 5 Issue 2 Article 11 Torts - Policeman as Licensee William T. Lehner Repository Citation William T. Lehner, Torts - Policeman as Licensee, 5 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 293 (1964),
More informationProperty Damage Caused by Defective Products: Strict Tort Recovery: Hawkins Construction Co. v. Matthews Co., 190 Neb. 546, 209 N.W.
Nebraska Law Review Volume 53 Issue 1 Article 7 1974 Property Damage Caused by Defective Products: Strict Tort Recovery: Hawkins Construction Co. v. Matthews Co., 190 Neb. 546, 209 N.W.2d 643 (1973) Steve
More informationKENNETH WAYNE AUSTIN OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. v. Record No June 5, 1998
Present: All the Justices KENNETH WAYNE AUSTIN OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. v. Record No. 972627 June 5, 1998 CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY UPON A QUESTION OF LAW CERTIFIED BY THE UNITED STATES
More informationTC Heartland s Restraints On ANDA Litigation Jurisdiction
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com TC Heartland s Restraints On ANDA Litigation
More informationProblems With Hypothesizing Reasonable Royalty Negotiation
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Problems With Hypothesizing Reasonable Royalty Negotiation
More informationCase 2:12-md Document 1596 Filed 06/12/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 19539
Case 2:12-md-02327 Document 1596 Filed 06/12/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 19539 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON IN RE: ETHICON, INC., PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM PRODUCTS
More informationCOPYRIGHTED MATERIAL THE LEGAL CONTEXT OF CONSTRUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION
1 1.1 INTRODUCTION THE LEGAL CONTEXT OF CONSTRUCTION Construction projects are complex and multifaceted. Likewise, the law governing construction is complex and multifaceted. Aside from questions of what
More informationImplied Warranty: Disclaimer Ineffective
University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Law Review 1-1-1967 Implied Warranty: Disclaimer Ineffective Ronald Wm. Sabo Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr
More informationClashing Policies or Confusing Precedents: The "Gross Negligence" Exception to Consequential Damages Disclaimers
William & Mary Business Law Review Volume 4 Issue 2 Article 4 Clashing Policies or Confusing Precedents: The "Gross Negligence" Exception to Consequential Damages Disclaimers Michael Pillow Repository
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY DELMARVA POWER & ) LIGHT COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) C.A. No.00C-02-175 WCC ) v. ) ) ABB POWER T & D COMPANY ) INC., and ) ASEA
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS GREGORY TAYLOR and JAMES NIEZNAJKO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, FOR PUBLICATION October 14, 2014 9:00 a.m. v No. 314534 Genesee Circuit Court MICHIGAN PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGIES,
More informationHow Escobar Reframes FCA's Materiality Standard
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com How Escobar Reframes FCA's Materiality Standard
More informationHooksett Sewer Commission. Penta Corporation, I. Kruger, Inc. d/b/a/ Kruger, Inc. and Graves Engineering, Inc. No. 13-CV-540 ORDER
MERRIMACK, SS SUPERIOR COURT Hooksett Sewer Commission v. Penta Corporation, I. Kruger, Inc. d/b/a/ Kruger, Inc. and Graves Engineering, Inc. No. 13-CV-540 ORDER The Plaintiff, Hooksett Sewer Commission
More informationHEADNOTE: Charles Joswick, et ux. v. Chesapeake Mobile Homes, Inc., et al., No. 402, September Term, 1999
HEADNOTE: Charles Joswick, et ux. v. Chesapeake Mobile Homes, Inc., et al., No. 402, September Term, 1999 WARRANTY FOR FUTURE PERFORMANCE - THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING A WARRANTY FOR FUTURE PERFORMANCE
More informationViewing Class Settlements Through A New Lens: Part 2
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Viewing Class Settlements Through A New Lens:
More informationEconomics Loss in Products Liability: Strict Liability or the Uniform Commercial Code? Spring Motors Distributors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
Boston College Law Review Volume 28 Issue 2 Number 2 Article 6 3-1-1987 Economics Loss in Products Liability: Strict Liability or the Uniform Commercial Code? Spring Motors Distributors, Inc. v. Ford Motor
More informationUnion Enforcement of Individual Employee Rights Arising from a Collective Bargaining Contract
Louisiana Law Review Volume 21 Number 2 The Work of the Louisiana Supreme Court for the 1959-1960 Term February 1961 Union Enforcement of Individual Employee Rights Arising from a Collective Bargaining
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION December 10, 2002 9:00 a.m. v No. 227384 Oakland Circuit Court MCI WORLDCOM, INC., MCI WORLDCOM LC No. 99-016997-CZ
More informationComments to the Reporters and Selected Members of the Consultative Group, Restatement of Torts (Third): Products Liability
University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Articles Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship 1994 Comments to the Reporters and Selected Members of the Consultative Group, Restatement of
More informationTobacco Trial Sheds Light On Punitive Damages Process
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Tobacco Trial Sheds Light On Punitive Damages
More informationMANUFACTURER LIABLE FOR BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY: PRIVITY NOT REQUIRED
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS MANUFACTURER LIABLE FOR BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY: PRIVITY NOT REQUIRED Rogers v. Toni Home Permanent Co., 167 Ohio St. 244, 147 N.E.2d 612 (1958) In her petition plaintiff alleged
More information-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.
Citation: 61 Baylor L. Rev. 783 2009 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Tue May 25 23:29:52 2010 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's
More informationPresent: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Russell, S.J.
Present: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Russell, S.J. SHERMAN DREHER, ET AL. v. Record No. 052508 OPINION BY JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER September 15, 2006 BUDGET RENT-A-CAR
More informationSUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA FRANCIS D. PETSCH, CASE NO. SC04-917 Petitioner, v. ORKIN EXTERMINATING COMPANY, INC.; ROLLINS, INC; DAVID BERNSTEIN, individually, and RICK PROTHERO,
More informationEmerging Trend Against Nationwide Venue In Antitrust Cases
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Emerging Trend Against Nationwide Venue In Antitrust
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No. 08-CV-12634
Crawford v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA Doc. 25 BETTY CRAWFORD, a.k.a. Betty Simpson, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION vs. Plaintiff, Case No. 08-CV-12634 HON. GEORGE
More informationCase 2:17-cv JFW-SS Document 104 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:1392 CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case 2:17-cv-02227-JFW-SS Document 104 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:1392 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JS-6 CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL Case No. CV 17-2227-JFW(SSx) Date:
More informationDirect vs. Consequential Damages
The University of Texas School of Law Presented: 2011 Construction Law Conference Thursday, September 22 Friday, September 23, 2011 Belo Mansion Dallas, Texas Direct vs. Consequential Damages Jo Ann Merica
More informationNevada Supreme Court Declares Pay-If-Paid Clauses Unenforceable Or Did It?
Nevada Supreme Court Declares Pay-If-Paid Clauses Unenforceable Or Did It? by Greg Gledhill, Associate For decades, pay-if-paid and/or pay-when-paid clauses have appeared in typical construction subcontracts.
More informationThe Latest On Fee-Shifting In Patent Cases
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Latest On Fee-Shifting In Patent Cases Law360,
More informationANSWER A TO ESSAY QUESTION 5
ANSWER A TO ESSAY QUESTION 5 Sally will bring products liability actions against Mfr. based on strict liability, negligence, intentional torts and warranty theories. Strict Products Liability A strict
More informationUS V. Dico: A Guide To Avoiding CERCLA Arranger Liability?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com US V. Dico: A Guide To Avoiding CERCLA Arranger Liability?
More informationLexmark Could Profoundly Impact Patent Exhaustion
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Lexmark Could Profoundly Impact Patent Exhaustion
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION (at Covington) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) *** *** *** ***
Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 2766 Filed: 07/29/13 Page: 1 of 5 - Page ID#: 80288 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION (at Covington IN RE: DARVOCET, DARVON AND
More informationTHE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court. Jeffrey M. Sapp, Jr., Appellant, Ford Motor Company, Respondent.
SC Judicial Department Page 1 of 7 THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court Jeffrey M. Sapp, Jr., Appellant, v. Ford Motor Company, Respondent. Appeal from Jasper County John C. Few, Circuit Court
More informationArticle from: Risk Management. March 2012 Issue 24
Article from: Risk Management March 2012 Issue 24 RISK RESPONSE Five Factors That Courts Consider When Deciding Whether to Enforce Limitation of Liability Provisions in Professional Service Agreements
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 5, 2009 Session
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 5, 2009 Session LINCOLN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. DETROIT DIESEL CORPORATION ET AL. Rule 23 Certified Question of Law United States District Court
More informationParticular Statutory regimes: strict
Particular Statutory regimes: strict liability Definition of strict liability: Strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault ( such as negligence or tortiousintent).
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC Lower Tribunal No.: 3D AVIOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al. Petitioners, vs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC-08-1922 Lower Tribunal No.: 3D07-299 AVIOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al Petitioners, vs. CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY, Respondent. RESPONDENT S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
More informationPost-EBay: Permanent Injunctions, Future Damages
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Post-EBay: Permanent Injunctions, Future Damages
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LTL ACRES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, No. 468, 2015 Plaintiff Below- Appellant, Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware v. CA No. S13C-07-025 BUTLER
More informationThe Patent Bar's Role In Setting PTAB Precedence
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Patent Bar's Role In Setting PTAB Precedence Law360,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY PADUCAH DIVISION CASE NO.: 5:06cv23-R MARK L. CRAWFORD, M.D., P.S.C.,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY PADUCAH DIVISION CASE NO.: 5:06cv23-R MARK L. CRAWFORD, M.D., P.S.C., PLAINTIFF v. CENTRAL STATE, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST AREAS HEALTH AND WELFARE
More information