Elizabeth Wysong-Berg to Present at Seminar “Property Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Claims”

Goodin Abernathy attorney, Elizabeth Wysong-Berg will be presenting at a seminar on August 9, 2012 entitled, "Property Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Claims."  For more information regarding this seminar click here.

Chip Clark Presents NBI Seminar, “Handling Complex Auto Insurance Coverage Disputes”

Goodin Abernathy partner, Christopher "Chip" Clark, will be one of the presenters at the National Business Institute Seminar entitled, "Handling Complex Auto Insurance Coverage Disputes," being held in Indianapolis on December 9, 2011.  For more information, or to register for this informative seminar, click here. 

Indiana State Fair Commission Seeks Photos or Videos of Stage Collapse

See the Indiana State Fair Commission Website for more details. 

Indiana’s Texting Ban Takes Effect Friday, July 1st

SOURCE: IC 9-21-8-59; (11)HE1129.1.4. --> SECTION 4. IC 9-21-8-59 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2011]: Sec. 59. (a) A person may not use a telecommunications device to: (1) type a text message or an electronic mail message;
        (2) transmit a text message or an electronic mail message; or (3) read a text message or an electronic mail message;
while operating a moving motor vehicle unless the device is used in conjunction with hands free or voice operated technology, or unless the device is used to call 911 to report a bona fide emergency. (b) A police officer may not confiscate a telecommunications device for the purpose of determining compliance with this section or confiscate a telecommunications device and retain it as evidence pending trial for a violation of this section.

Illinois Joins Indiana with Law Requiring the Use of Seatbelts in the Backseat

http://www.suntimes.com/5210955-417/illinois-house-narrowly-passes-bill-requiring-back-seat-seatbelt-use.html

Supreme Court Allows Zicam Suit

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Supreme Court allows suit against Zicam maker to proceed
Zach Zagger at 11:36 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Tuesday ruled that a shareholder class action suit can continue against Matrixx Initiatives, the maker of Zicam Cold Remedy, for failure to disclose harmful side effects that were not statistically significant. The shareholders alleged that Matrixx failed to disclose reports of a possible link between the active ingredient in Zicam and loss of smell and that, in light of these reports, had made misleading statements to the public about Zicam's possible side effects. The unanimous opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor in Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano  held that the respondents representing the shareholders had stated a claim under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 for employment of a manipulative or deceptive device. These laws require that the shareholders allege that Matrixx intentionally disclosed material information to investors. Matrixx claimed that the link between Zicam and loss of smell was not material because it was not statistically significant. The Supreme Court did not agree with such a bright-line rule:
Although in many cases reasonable investors would not consider reports of adverse events to be material information, respondents have alleged facts plausibly suggesting that reasonable investors would have viewed these particular reports as material. Respondents have also alleged facts giving rise to a strong inference that Matrixx acted with the required state of mind.
The court reasoned that oftentimes medical experts and the Food and Drug Administration rely on less than statistically significant data to prove causation and that a reasonable investor may be inclined to do the same. Matrixx also argued that that the shareholders did not allege facts sufficient to prove the scienter requirement. However, the court held the shareholders met their burden because, assuming the alleged facts to be true, there was a cogent and compelling inference that Matrixx withheld disclosure to prevent harmful impacts on the marketing of Zicam.
The decision upholds the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling in favor of the shareholders. Counsel for Matrixx had argued during oral argument that the reports do not establish any reliable facts about the drug and that a duty to report these results would unfairly affect the company. Matrixx claimed that, absent evidence that "the company has knowledge of facts establishing a reliable basis for inferring that the drug itself is the cause of the reported event," neither the materiality nor scienter requirements of the securities laws were violated. 

Supreme Court: Family Can Sue Mazda for Seat Belt Death

(AP) WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court will let Mazda be sued in California courts in case involving a woman who died while wearing a seat belt across her lap in her family's minivan.
The high court in a unanimous judgment Wednesday agreed to let the lawsuit go forward, despite complaints from the car company that federal regulators gave it an option on whether to install lap belts or lap-and-shoulder belts in the middle seats in the back of the van.

Thanh Williamson's family wants to sue Mazda Motor of America Inc. because it made its 1993 Mazda MPV minivan with only lap seat belts in the middle seat of the van's second row. Williamson, who was from Utah, died in a 2002 accident; her family says her body jackknifed around the lap belt causing fatal internal injuries.

Federal regulations require lap-and-shoulder belts for the front seats and the rear outer seats but give companies an option on the rear middle or aisle seats. The Williamsons want a court to say that Mazda was negligent for not putting the lap-and-shoulder belts on the inner seats on its own.

But Mazda said it is immune from lawsuits because the federal government in 1989 gave it a choice of installing either lap or lap-and-shoulder seat belts in the middle rear seat. A lawsuit forcing them to use lap-and-shoulder belts, the company said, would invalidate the choice being offered by the regulation.

California state courts have agreed, throwing out the family's lawsuit. They cited a 2000 Supreme Court decision that threw out lawsuits that tried to force car companies to install air bags in cars instead of other passive restraint devices.

But Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote the majority judgment, said the only way that Mazda would be immune is if the "significant objective" of the federal regulation was to give auto manufacturers a choice of which seat belts to install.

The Transportation Department "gave no indication that its safety goals required the mixture of seatbelt types that resulted from manufacturers' ability to choose different options," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a concurring judgment.

Added Breyer: The more important reason why DOT did not require lap-and-shoulder belts for rear inner seats was that it thought that this requirement would not be cost-effective. The agency explained that it would be significantly more expensive for manufacturers to install lap-and shoulder belts in rear middle and aisle seats than in seats next to the car doors. But that fact — the fact that DOT made a negative judgment about cost effectiveness — cannot by itself show that DOT sought to forbid common law tort suits in which a judge or jury might reach a different conclusion."

Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the judgment, but said the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 made coming to that conclusion even easier.

"Congress has instructed that 'compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law," Thomas said. "This saving clause 'explicitly preserves state common-law actions.' ... According to Mazda, the Williamsons' lawsuit alleging that it should have installed a lap-and-shoulder belt instead is pre-empted. That argument is foreclosed by the saving clause; The Williamsons' state tort action is not pre-empted."

Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in this case because she worked on it while serving as solicitor general.

The case is Williamson v. Mazda, 08-1314.

Food and Drug Administration Recalls Darvocet/Propoxyphene

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWhqiQ-4SJQ