Tort Liability Litigation Costs for Commercial Claims

This article analyzes tort liability litigation costs usingthe Texas Department of Insurance Commercial Liability InsuranceClosed Claim database for the years 1988–2004. Insurercosts to defend claims in which a suit was filed average $35,000per claim in 2004$, which corresponds to a share of 0.18 oftotal expenditures. Claims with higher stakes and complexitylead to greater reliance on outside counsel and less relianceon in-house counsel. Total transactions costs for each dollarreceived by claimants average $0.75 for all claims and $0.83for claims in which the claimant retained an attorney and asuit was filed.     

Looking Back and Forward on Asbestos Claims

There have been many developments in the asbestos claims arena. Asbestos costs have been affected by a number of important developments in the past two years, and it is expected that activity level will be high this year. Particularly significant in 2014 was the Garlock case, which set a precedent for increased transparency of relevant facts in asbestos litigation. In addition, there are legislative activities at the federal and state levels that include increasing transparency. This article focuses on trends in asbestos litigation, and highlights that there are environmental insurance products available for new exposure to asbestos.     

The struggle over retiree medical benefits: who's on top?

Over the past decade, there has been an explosion of litigation addressing an employer's right to unilaterally amend or terminate medical benefits provided to retirees. The sheer volume of these cases and the variety of facts and legal theories have combined to obscure the patterns and trends that actually are emerging from this litigation. This article will describe the context of the struggle over retiree benefits and discuss those leading decisions in which the federal courts of appeals have established their rules for deciding retiree benefits cases.     

Seeking rents through class actions and legislative lobbying: a comparison

This article analyzes class actions as a technology that groups may use in their rent-seeking activity, in addition to other rent-seeking methods such as legislative investment within the political market, when they seek to achieve favorable decisions from decision-makers—courts and legislators. It claims that groups may make their choice between various rent-seeking technologies according to their sensitivity to the problem of free riding. Therefore, it analyzes the effect of the legal instruments that facilitate class action lawsuits and collective litigation in most countries upon the rent-seeking strategies of groups, as compared to rent-seeking through legislation.     

证据排除规则的重构——以诉讼效率为视角

诉讼效率指诉讼收益与诉讼成本之间的差额。诉讼收益主要体现为发现真实,而诉讼成本主要体现为证据的收集与认定成本。证据排除规则既可以保障发现案件真实,亦可以保护其他合法利益,但我国目前的证据法没有能够从提供诉讼效率的角度去设计证据排除规则,我国诉讼法中不同的诉讼采用相同的证明标准是这一现象出现的重要原因。     

小额速裁程序的法理思考与制度完善

小额速裁程序制度已经突破传统诉讼程序设置的基本原理与框架,在法律定位上,该程序应当是与普通程序和简易程序独立并存的审判程序。诉讼程序与非诉程序法理交错适用、诉讼成本与诉讼收益相适应、效率与公正价值的衡平、诉讼合意与能动司法的协调是该程序的理论基础。我国小额速裁程序制度的完善应当在依据其基本法理、反思各地司法实践经验的基础上,实现从体例结构到内容的改进。     

Insurance Should Be a Company's First Line of Defense Against the Wave of Public Nuisance Claims

When plaintiff attorneys and State Attorneys General obtained nearly half a trillion dollars in settlement asserting that tobacco companies had created a public nuisance, public nuisance became a popular new litigation weapon. For example, public nuisance claims have been brought against companies for their alleged contribution to global warming. Whatever the merit of such claims—indeed many public nuisance claims have been defeated—defendant companies should consider what insurance assets they have to aid their defense against even groundless nuisance claims, and, if necessary, to indemnify them against any judgment or settlement. It is helpful that courts nationwide favor liberal insurance language interpretations to protect insureds against, among other things, changes in tort law enlarging potential liability exposure.     

“In One Direction Only”: Chains of Reasoning and Tail Events in CAFA Amount-in-Controversy Claims

While the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) establishes a bright-line jurisdictional amount in controversy for removing cases from state to federal court, calculating that quantitative threshold in practice is a fraught and heavily litigated exercise. This article examines removals under CAFA to show the substantial lack of clarity in how state-law causes of action and damage claims interact to reach the jurisdictional threshold. It compiles cases illustrating the challenges surrounding removal litigation that flow from these uncertainties, particularly in how the structure of CAFA incentivizes defendants to chain together tail-event precedent to inflate theoretical amounts in controversy. It then applies a Coasean analysis to suggest these uncertainties impede efficient resolutions to litigation. Finally, it suggests a series of practical amendments to CAFA and its interpretive case law that would provide clarity, decrease forum-selection litigation, and enhance the efficacy of class litigation.     

Expert Testimony on Psychological Injury: Procedural and Evidentiary Issues

This article introduces psychologists to aspects of the legal process most pertinent to their role as expert witnesses in civil litigation. It summarizes the role of psychological evidence in the adjudication of common law tort claims, the structure of the court system, and the stages of the litigation process. It also explains the various roles a psychological expert may play during litigation and the implications of those roles for expert confidentiality and disclosure. The article then provides an overview of legal policy governing the admissibility of psychological expertise, especially as admissibility is affected by the “Daubert” standard applied in most North American courts.     

Litigation Dilemmas: Lessons from the Marcos Human Rights Class Action

How do activist plaintiffs experience the process of human rights litigation under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS)? Answering this question is key to understanding the impact on transnational legal mobilization of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., in which the US Supreme Court sharply limited the scope of the ATS. Yet sociolegal scholars know remarkably little about the experiences of ATS litigants, before or after Kiobel. This article describes how activist litigants in a landmark ATS class action against former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos faced a series of strategic dilemmas, and how disagreements over how to resolve those dilemmas played into divisions between activists and organizations on the Philippine left. The article develops an analytical framework focused on litigation dilemmas to explain how and why activists who pursue ATS litigation as an opportunity for legal mobilization may also encounter strategic dilemmas that contribute to dissension within a social movement.     

Litigation: a threat to obstetric practice?

Claims that the practice of obstetrics is in crisis appear regularly in the media, but evidence for the claims is scarce. This article examines a range of evidence from Australia and overseas and explores the relationship between obstetric practice and litigation. While anecdotal evidence abounds, there is no hard evidence to confirm that litigation is the threat to obstetric practice that many practitioners strongly believe it is. It is likely that such practitioners respond by practising defensive medicine but this is very difficult to measure.     

Making economically sound confinement decisions: A response to the zedlewski thesis

This paper examines the economic costs and benefits of incarceration of criminals, elaborating upon and correcting flaws in Zedlewski’s 1987 claims that incarceration is a cost-minimizing crime prevention strategy. We use Bureau of Justice Statistics data to demonstrate gross errors in Zedlewski’s crude estimates. We find that the costs of incarceration are more than double the benefits in costs of crime avoided. We conclude that the cost-saving incapacitation effects of incarceration do not warrant either the current levels of imprisonment or any future increases.     

论请求权竞合时诉的客观合并之形态

为缓解“案多人少”矛盾,很有必要以妥当处理请求权竞合纠纷为切入点,拓展诉的客观合并制度的研究。与我国《民法典》第186条规范目的相符合的是请求权自由竞合说与择一实现说。依据实体法的规定、学说及我国诉讼标的理论、诉讼制度,诉讼实务中可能出现规模化的后续诉讼。诉的客观合并具有现实必要性和理论上的应然性。随着请求权竞合现象增多,为了充分保障当事人权利、一次性解决纠纷,应尽快确立完整的诉的客观合并制度。就诉的客观合并的具体形态而言,不宜以客观预备合并应对请求权观念竞合现象。请求权观念竞合时采竞合合并较为适宜。请求权现实竞合时可允许选择合并与客观预备合并。     

浅谈公益诉讼的诉讼费用

新型的公益诉讼的出现使传统诉讼费用制度得到质疑,与传统诉讼形式为私利的目的不同,公益诉讼的目的是让所有的人能通过诉讼来维护国家、社会公共利益。所以为了促进人民维护公共利益的积极性,传统诉讼费用的一些制度如费用金额、预交等在公益诉讼中应进行改革或取消。     

Using after-the-event insurance and conditional fee agreements in defending weak IP claims

Legal context: As the cost of IP litigation increases, the cost of defendinga claim can be prohibitive, even if the defendant is ultimatelysuccessful. In this article, the authors consider how after-the-event(‘ATE’) insurance and conditional fee agreements(‘CFA’) can be used in IP disputes. Key points: The authors describe a recent innovative ATE insurance product,explain how ATE insurance and CFAs can be applied to IP disputes,and explain how a combination of ATE insurance and a CFA canput the defendant in a very strong position, with a high degreeof certainty of costs. Practical significance: The fact that a party has obtained offers of ATE insurance and/ora CFA indicates to the other side that (i) its solicitors areconfident of succeeding, (ii) it has obtained a favourable counsel'sopinion; and (iii) there is likely to be a substantial disparityin each side's potential costs. This gives rise to a usefuladditional benefit of a tactical advantage given to the defendant,which may lead to an early settlement on terms favourable tothe defendant.     

The costs of class actions: allocation and collective redress in the US experience

Once a preserve of the American legal landscape, the class action device today transcends geographic boundaries. In the past decade, efforts have intensified to establish collective litigation instruments in diverse legal terrains outside the United States—including Europe—often with the common goal of allowing some form of collective legal redress while avoiding perceived disadvantages of class actions in the American experience. Today more than ever, from legislators to litigants to scholars, European reformers face the challenge—and the opportunity—of making fundamental choices about the scope and shape of the collective legal remedies they wish to make available. Choices about the shape of the class action device reflect foundational judgments about the proper allocation of costs, and there is much from the US experience that can inform Europe’s prospective reformers. This article describes the history and current status of class action rules in the US, and then compares class actions and another form of extra-compensatory damages—one type of punitive damages—as means of doing the same thing. Although neither punitive damages of this sort nor class actions generally have traditionally existed in civil law systems, they both—and especially this particular form of punitive damages—can, from an economic view, be made to vindicate the same kind of social cost accounting goals. By considering these legal devices together, we hope to shed light on crucial choices facing Europe as it grapples with how best to provide collective legal redress in light of the lessons of the US experience with class actions.     

Tort tales and total justice: Exploring attitudes toward everyday tort claims for workplace injuries

Despite some retrenchment, the litigation state remains alive and well. All this litigation has engendered intense debates over whether increased lawsuits represent a rising tide of justice or a flood of frivolous claims. Tort law has been at the center of these debates for decades, standing at the fault line between “tort tale,” “total justice,” and “mixed” narratives about the perils and benefits of litigation. In this article, we use a survey experiment to probe attitudes toward claims for workplace injuries in light of these narratives. We find that our participants held multifaceted views. On one hand, they favored making claims over doing nothing or asking family members for help and saw lawsuits as equally appropriate as filing a government claim or hiring a lawyer to send a demand letter. On the other hand, tort tale themes cast a subtle shadow over our participants' views. When told claimants did not rush to the courts in defiance of tort tale expectations, our participants saw the lawsuit as more justified. Indeed, the more remedies exhausted prior to litigation, the more justifiable the lawsuit seemed, even though repeated denials of claims might undermine faith in their merits. The bottom line, we contend, is that attitudes toward litigation reflect not only the choice of remedy but also how remedies are used, even when the underlying claim is meritorious—a point that could be useful to practitioners and advocates as they weigh claiming options as well as litigation and public communication strategies.     

Mandatory Arbitration and Civil Litigation: An Empirical Study of Medical Malpractice Litigation in the West

This article looks at the effect that pretrial, statutorilyrequired screening panels in Nevada have had on medical malpracticelitigation. I use two unique data sets on litigation in Nevadaand neighboring states from 1983–88, during which theNevada legislature enacted screening panels. Applying time-seriesand difference-in-difference analyses, I show that observeddecreases in Nevada with respect to damage awards, attorney'sfees, and duration in litigation reflected a broader seculartrend. The panels did, however, reduce the relative probabilityof claims requiring resolution by the Nevada courts.     

An American Future? Contingency Fees,Claims Explosions and Evidence from Employment Tribunals

This article looks empirically at the notion of ‘American‐style’ problems with contingency fees: in particular, the purported link between contingency fees and claims explosions. It does so in the light of renewed interest in contingency fees as a vehicle for access to justice and the resolution of costs problems in the civil justice system prompted by Jackson LJ and others. The article sheds light on the considerable debate about the (de)merits of contingency fees in one of the main – and most controversial – contexts where they are permitted: employment tribunals. The evidence casts doubt on the claim that contingency fees, coupled with US‐style costs rules, lead inexorably to an explosion in litigation. The article also examines the significant inequalities in access to justice experienced by claimants and considers how far contingency fees address those concerns, suggesting limits to Kritzer's portfolio theory in relation to employment cases in England and Wales.     

Litigating Corporate Human Rights Information

This article analyzes trends in litigation brought against corporate actors regarding human rights information. Such information includes, but is not limited to, statements on packaging claiming that products are “ethically sourced” and investor-facing disclosures representing that an issuer's operations are environmentally friendly. It proceeds by outlining the sources of human rights-related disclosures as they arise under both legal and voluntary regimes. The article then addresses the case law. Recent years have seen an increase in lawsuits involving human rights information, or lack thereof, imparted by companies. Consumer protection or consumer fraud cases are being filed, alleging that companies have either provided false and misleading information or omitted information about corporate human rights impacts and mitigation efforts. Investors are filing similar claims. The article examines the trend and considers the role of this litigation both in holding companies to their word and in providing corporate accountability for the underlying human rights abuses that false or misleading human rights information may mask. It ultimately argues that, although success at trial in such cases remains elusive, litigation is a useful and potentially growing tool for holding companies to their word regarding human rights claims. It contextualizes this litigation, arguing that other means by which companies can be held to their word should be strengthened, including public enforcement and—potentially—new disclosure and due diligence laws.