DNA analysis and the Freedom of Information Act: information or invasion?

This note explores the possibility of release of an individual's DNA analysis to any person who requests it through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), after an individual's post-aircraft accident DNA profile has been developed by the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI). It analyzes whether the request would fall under the FOIA's 552(b)(6) exemption, which weighs a person's privacy interest against any public interest in such information, or if the release would constitute a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."     

Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd. v. London Residuary Body — The end of pragmatism or the beginning of reason?

Conclusion Whilst Lord Templeman seemed satisfied with the result of the decision in thePrudential case, Lord Browne-Wilkinson did not share his view. He said that the outcome of the case was unsatisfactory and did not accord with the agreement of the parties. He said No one has produced any satisfactory rationale for the genesis of this rule. No one has been able to point to any useful purpose that it serves at the present day and he urged the Law Commission to examine whether the rule should continue to operate in English law.The genesis of the rule was, it seems, satisfactorily described by Lord Templeman and its usefulness lies in the fact that it imposes a degree of certainty and reliability on the parties. Each knows from the outset what they have contracted for. Its failing lies in the fact that its operation, as Russell L.J. rightly pointed out, leads to a freely negotiated bargain being defeated. If the Law Commission does examine the rule then clearly the central issue will be the balancing of these two principles and which is to be given effect to. If the law wishes to see certainty and reliability in this area, then Lord Templeman's decision is undoubtedly welcome since the law was clearly in a state of flux and confusion before the case.     

The Construction of Terms of Facultative Reinsurance Contracts: is Wasa v Lexington the Exception or the Rule?

Do reinsurers insure the liability faced by the reinsured under its original insurance contract? Where the reinsurance and direct insurance policies are written in identical terms, is it enough for the reinsured to prove its liability under the original insurance policy in order to make a successful claim against its reinsurers? These questions are crucial, because they determine whether the terms of the reinsurance are to be construed identically to those of the direct policy even though they have different governing laws. The issues came before the House of Lords in Wasa International Insurance Co Ltd v Lexington Insurance Co [2009] UKHL 40 and the answers were provided in a judgment delivered on 30 July 2009, the last day of the operation of the House of Lords as a court. This note discusses the nature of facultative reinsurance contracts in the light of their Lordships' ruling.     

Insulin- or morphine-injection?: Immunohistochemical contribution to the elucidation of a case

Two autopsy cases of an elderly couple who died on the same day will be used to underline the importance of immunohistochemistry in forensic practice. At first unexplainable injection marks on the upper arms of the corpses and the possibility of a closely related physician injecting insulin and certifying a natural death made it important, considering suspect insulin concentrations in the blood, to exclude insulin injections in these marks. Further, the statement that morphine had been injected for the analgesia of tumour pains, was reinforced by immunohistochemistry.     

CTS Corporation v. Waldburger: Tempest in a Teapot or the End of Toxic Torts As We Know It?

42 USC § 9658 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act imposes a “discovery rule” on state law actions for personal injuries and property damage caused or contributed to by exposure to a hazardous substance, pollutants, or contaminants. In CTS Corporation v. Waldburger, 134 S. Ct. 2175, 2181 (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that section 9658 does not preempt statutes of repose, which establish absolute limits on the rights of plaintiffs to bring civil actions, notwithstanding any “discovery rule.” This article explores the potential impact of the Court's decision in Waldburger.