Expert Analysis

• NFL Coverage Ruling Sets Limits On Long-Tail Claim Defenses

  

  A New York appellate court's recent decision — holding that National Football League players who sustained neurological injuries had suffered multiple occurrences for insurance coverage purposes — may also be used to limit insurers' efforts to declaim coverage for other long-tail injury cases, including sexual abuse claims, say attorneys at SDV Fenchurch.

• 2nd Circ. EFAA Ruling Shifts Employer Litigation Strategy

  

  In Diaz-Roa v. Hermes Law, the Second Circuit recently held that, under the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, employers can't carve out nonharassment claims and send them to arbitration, which has implications for discovery, litigation costs and resolution strategy in EFAA-covered disputes, say attorneys at Krevolin Horst.

• DC Circ. Ruling Clarifies Standards For Buy America Waivers

  

  The D.C. Circuit's recent decision to uphold a Federal Railroad Administration Buy America waiver offers clarifying guidance about assessing domestic availability, distinguishing manufacturing capabilities from future production plans and creating a well-supported administrative record, says Todd Overman at Bass Berry.

• 3rd Circ. Ruling Opens Door For Fraud-On-The-Market Rethink

  

  The Third Circuit's recent decision in Ocugen, holding that a stable stock price after publication of restated financials does not prove immateriality, could be a vehicle for the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the doctrine undergirding certification of securities class actions, says Jonathan Richman at Brown Rudnick.

• 5 Issues To Watch As Fed. Circ. Hears Moderna Vax IP Case

  

  Upcoming oral arguments before the Federal Circuit in Arbutus v. Moderna will test whether patent liability protections for government contractors extend to vaccines distributed to the public, and the resolution of certain questions, such as how to define “for the government,” may be key to the outcome, say attorneys at Honigman.

• PFAS Ruling Extinguishes A Policyholder Path To Coverage

  

  Following an Ohio federal court's recent ruling in Fire-Dex v. Admiral Insurance, policyholders whose PFAS exposure is concentrated in workplace products will see bids for coverage fail under the occupational-disease exclusion, giving insurers a defense well suited for the category of claims that has been most resistant to pollution exclusions, say attorneys at Benesch.

• When Insurer Insolvency Won't Trigger Excess Coverage

  

  With its recent decision in A.R. Wilfley v. National Union Fire Insurance, the Colorado Supreme Court joins a growing national consensus enforcing clear and unambiguous anti-drop-down policy language in umbrella and excess policies, says Michael Kotula at Rivkin Radler.

• How DC Circ. Ruling Permits Playacting Bribery Defense

  

  The D.C. Circuit’s recent U.S. v. Burke decision appears to create a circuit split on whether prosecutors must prove public officials’ intent in bribery cases, and opens a gap between what appears to be corrupt conduct and what the law can reach, says Liz Aloi at MoFo.

• Series

  Being In The Peace Corps Made Me A Better Lawyer

  

  When I served in the Peace Corps, the people of the West African village where I was stationed helped me acclimate to my new surroundings and enabled me to develop problem-solving, teamwork and empathy skills that have bolstered my legal practice far beyond the ability to offer technical advice, says Brian Bewley at McGuireWoods.

• Remote Work Ruling Clarifies Calif. Law Limits, With Caveats

  

  Although a California state appeals court's recent decision in Saberin v. Alation confirmed that California employment laws do not operate extraterritorially merely because a company is headquartered in the state, employers shouldn't construe this as authorization to relocate decision-makers to circumvent statutory obligations, says Hallie Aylesworth at Sheppard.

• EPA Rollback Puts Power Plant GHG Rules In Flux

  

  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's recent actions on power plant greenhouse gas emissions create immediate implications for power plant operators and long-term regulatory uncertainty, while raising questions about the relationship between federal and state approaches to climate-related litigation, say attorneys at Van Ness Feldman.

• What $5.7B Apple Verdict Reveals About Patent Risk

  

  A California federal jury's recent $5.7 billion damages verdict against Apple exemplifies the enormous financial exposure that can occur when patent-infringing features are incorporated into many units, though the outcome is ultimately dependent on the strength of the underlying infringement, validity and damages theories, says Michael Dorfman at Barclay Damon.

• Dissecting Dodd's, Gensler's Prediction Market Amicus Briefs

  

  Former Sen. Chris Dodd and former U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler's recent amicus briefs in support of New Jersey's petition for U.S. Supreme Court review of Kalshi v. Flaherty draw on legislative history to counter the CFTC's claim of federal preemption over the prediction markets, says Trace Schmeltz at Steptoe.

• What Colo. High Court Will Weigh In Insurer Disclosure Case

  

  In Bohanan v. Esurance, the Colorado Supreme Court will decide whether an insurance policy must be produced to a claimant notwithstanding the insurer's coverage position, and the court's interpretation of what "may be relevant to the claim," in the statute, will be paramount, say attorneys at Burg Simpson.

• 6th Circ. Spotlights Cannabis Contract Enforceability Risks

  

  The Sixth Circuit's recent reversal of a $31.8 million jury verdict against a subsidiary of cannabis giant Curaleaf highlights that state licenses do not necessarily provide the legal foundation needed to enforce contracts in federal court, which is a pattern that appears across many sectors, say attorneys at ArentFox Schiff.