Litigation roundup

  • Settlement insurance, a new litigation-finance mechanism, can have the unintended result of casting light on just how little benefit some class actions provide to consumers [Ted Frank, CEI] Yet another new litigation finance mechanism: trial-expense insurance purchased by lawyers [Bloomberg/Insurance Journal]
  • South Carolina law firm sues 185 different defendants in the average asbestos case it files, and it’s still far from tops in that department [Palmetto Business Daily]
  • “Those terms and conditions (that nobody reads) could cost New Jersey retailers” [Tim Darragh, on class actions under pre-Internet-era state consumer protection law]
  • Some federal courts, while paying lip service to the important Rule 26 discovery reforms that took effect Dec. 1, continue in their old ways, “effectively applying the old standard” [James Beck]
  • “Can Pokémon Go and Product Liability Coexist?” [Julie Steinberg, BNA/Product Safety & Liability Reporter, earlier]
  • “How does privatization affect liability?” [Sasha Volokh]


  • Re: NJ laws. In sum, companies say that they support an ancient law when it helps them, the Federal Arbitration Act, but when an ancient law harms them, it should be thrown out.

    Machiavelli, where for art thou?

    • “Machiavelli, where for art thou?”


      It is amusing that you seem to think that this sort of attitude towards laws, supporting them when they help and opposing them when they don’t, is somehow unique to corporations.

    • You can take out the word “ancient” and your statement works just as well. Of course the companies are looking out for their own interests.

      I don’t see the issue with not allowing companies to take illegal terms and present them as a valid contract. They SHOULD be punished for that. Are we really supposed to feel sorry for them when they impose contracts on us and them claim they didn’t know what was in them?