- Increased Insurance Premiums: Are They Recoverable from Third-Party Tortfeasors?
- Texas Supreme Court Clarified the Applicable Standard for Proving Attorney’s Fees
- The Oregon Rule and Presumption of Fault
- Drivers’ Liability: The Unavoidable Accident Defense
- Fraudulent Concealment: When does the statute of limitations begin to run for a breach of contract claim, if fraudulent concealment is asserted?
- Application of the Discovery Rule to Breach of Contract Claims
- Proper Procedure to Obtain Entry on Real Property of a Nonparty for Purposes of Inspection and Photographing
- Designating Unknown Responsible Third Parties: How to Properly Designate an Unknown Driver
- Premises Liability: Do Open and Obvious Naturally Occurring Conditions Pose an Unreasonable Risk of Harm?
- The Borrowed Servant Doctrine – At What Point Will the General Employer’s Liability Be Severed?
Showing 21 posts from 2017.
The Graves Amendment, found in the Federal Transportation Equity Act of 2005, created immunity for vehicle lessors as to claims of vicarious liability arising out of the lessee's conduct during the rental period.
The relevant subsections of the Graves Amendment read as follows: Read More ›
When a plaintiff is injured on property owned by another two possible claims may arise—general negligence and premises liability. A crucial component of premises liability claims, absent in general negligence claims, is control. Owners of industrial workplaces often contract with multiple contractors to perform various operations on the premises. When an employee of the owner of the property is injured by a defective condition created by a contractor, courts must determine whether the contractor was in control of the premises. For a defendant to owe a duty to a plaintiff under a premises liability claim, the defendant must have been in control of the premises. If the defendant was not in control of the premises, there is consequently no responsibility for dangerous conditions existing on the property. Read More ›
In a previous blog, we discussed “What is Cyber Subrogation?” This week's blog will focus on potential barriers and limitations to successful cyber subrogation. While this list is non-exhaustive, it gives an overview to the various barriers and limitations to successful cyber subrogation. These barriers include (1) contractual waivers and limitations; (2) a lack of clear applicable standards; and (3) the first individuals to investigate the breach or attack are likely the later target defendants, i.e., the fox guarding the henhouse analogy. Read More ›
Cyberattacks have become increasingly frequent and costly. In 2015 alone, an estimated 300 million records were leaked and over $1 billion stolen. By 2017, this number has only risen, with global companies becoming frequent targets. This year, a specific malware cyber-attack orchestrated and launched on Tuesday, June 27, 2017 used a “NotPetya” attack. The malware is called NotPetya because it masquerades as the Petya ransomware. “This [malware] is definitely not designed to make money. This is designed to spread fast and cause damage, with a plausibly deniable cover of ransomware”. Read More ›
The Eastern District Court of Texas joins a growing number of courts criticizing the use of boilerplate language in objections. Specifically, the commonly used “subject to” objections leave uncertain as to what, if any, information has been withheld. When responding to discovery, it is common practice to provide boilerplate objections to each request and include “subject to” language in the objection. This language is “manifestly confusing (at best) and misleading (at worst) and has no basis at all in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” The use of “subject to” objections has created an ambiguity which is prohibited under Rule 34 and may result in courts overruling objections. Read More ›
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 82.008: A Shield for Manufacturers in Design-Defect Causes of Action?
Enacted in 2003 as part of a legislative effort to shield manufacturers from liability in cases where they complied with all applicable federal safety standards, Section 82.008 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code ("Section 82.008") provides a rebuttable presumption for manufacturers who are defendants in a products liability design-defect suit. Read More ›
Introduction: A Model for Insurance Fraud
In recent years, numerous public insurance adjusters, contractors illegally acting as public adjusters and attorneys have used severe weather events, like the 2012 Hidalgo County hailstorms, to manipulate a profit from the subsequent flood of insurance claims. A typical model used to maximize profit on fraudulent insurance claims starts with canvassers going door-to-door convincing homeowners they are entitled to more compensation than their insurance company provided. Read More ›
Historic flooding recently occurred as a result of Hurricane Harvey. This flood reached levels never before recorded, even eclipsing the record recently established during the Tax-Day Flood of 2016. As a result of this most recent flood, the Army Corps of Engineers and local officials decided to release water from the Addicks and Barker reservoirs. This release of water by a governmental agency presents a major legal hurdle for liability: governmental immunity. Read More ›
After one of the worst natural disasters to ever hit the United States, it is time to recover and rebuild. Below are several helpful maps of flooding areas and shelters, and processes for filing an insurance claim or FEMA assistance. Read More ›
USAA Texas Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, No. 14-0721, on petition for review from the Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, was argued on October 11, 2016 and decided on April 7, 2017.
After Hurricane Ike struck in September 2008, Gail Menchaca contacted her homeowner’s insurance company, USAA Texas Lloyds (“USAA”), to report damage to her home. Upon investigation, USAA’s adjuster found only minimal damage. USAA determined its policy covered some of the damage, but declined to pay Menchaca any benefits because the total estimated repair costs did not exceed the policy’s deductible. About five months later, at Menchaca’s request, USAA sent another adjuster to re-inspect the property. This adjuster confirmed the first adjuster’s findings, and USAA again refused to pay any policy benefits. Read More ›