Law Firm News

---

Law Firm News

Firm Name

News Title

News

News Date

25383 matches |  9948-9954 displayed

1  1421 1422 1423 1424 1425  3627

---

Goldberg Katzman, P.C.

Steckel Serves as President of Juvenile Diabetes Research Fund
Dave Steckel has been serving as the President of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Fund (JDRF) since June of 2006. JDRF is an organization whose mission is to raise money to fund research with a goal of finding a cure for Type 1 (Juvenile) Diabetes. JDRF raises approximately $400,000 per year in pursuit of its goal.

02-22-2007

---

Goldberg Katzman, P.C.

Sembrot Speaks at Criminal Law Seminar
Goldberg Katzman associate, Joe Sembrot, recently spoke at the "Criminal Law Update" seminar offered by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute Seminar. Joe's specific topic was "Criminal Appellate Practice Update." Joe's practice at Goldberg, Katzman includes practice before Pennsylvania's appellate courts (both federal and state courts) where decisions of Pennsylvania's Courts of Common Pleas and federal District Court's are reviewed.

02-22-2007

---

Goldberg Katzman, P.C.

Hendershot Appointed to Widener Board of Visitor
Neil Hendershot has been appointed to the Widener University School of Law's Board of Visitors. This 41-member panel includes Supreme Court justices, judges, and several community leaders. The Board of Visitors will assist Widener's Law and Government Institute in the teaching, understanding and practice of government law in an effort to produce government law specialists and improve government operations.

02-22-2007

---

Gilbert, Heintz & Randolph, L.L.P.

Insurance Coverage Critical As Benzene Gains Attention Among Toxic Torts
Benzene has gained national attention and become a new focus for the toxic tort plaintiffs’ bar and the media.1 Although benzene-related suits are not yet as numerous as those arising from asbestos or even lead paint, the increasing number of these suits makes it particularly important for businesses that deal with benzene to assess their insurance portfolios and engage insurance coverage counsel, before becoming involved in lawsuits and incurring liabilities. For companies already defending benzene personal injury suits, insurance coverage should be addressed immediately, because comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) insurance policies may well cover these suits.

As we have learned from asbestos, benzene defendants are likely to incur substantial litigation defense costs and face the risk of large judgments. In the 1970s, companies producing and distributing asbestos were just beginning to understand that they might incur liabilities for asbestos-related personal injuries caused by their products.2 At the time, it was not yet clear how valuable an asset insurance policies would become as asbestos companies faced staggering liabilities over the next few decades. Some time later, the lead industry became a toxic tort target and insurance once again was a valuable asset, as lead paint and pigment producers defended themselves in personal injury suits.

Insurance coverage has now become more important than ever before for the lead industry since the lead industry recently suffered the first ever jury verdict against it, when the State of Rhode Island succeeded on a theory that lead paint is a public nuisance.In the early 1990s, Texaco suffered a verdict exceeding $25 million in a benzene exposure personal injury and wrongful death suit.4 The plaintiff in the underlying tort action was Otis Mason, a former U.S. Coast Guard employee. Mason was exposed to benzene at high levels over a period from September 1974 through November 1975, while instructing students on the use of a motor oil test kit. He was diagnosed with leukemia in September 1977, and died two years later in December 1979. Mason’s wife was substituted as plaintiff and was awarded over $25 million in damages, punitive damages, and interest. The judgment against Texaco serves as an example of just howexpensive even a single plaintiff’s toxic tort action can be for a defendant.

In what was one of the first benzene bodily injury insurance coverage cases, Texaco filed a global toxic tort insurance coverage suit against several insurers in the Superior Court of California, seeking coverage for thousands of individual toxic tort claims, including Mason’s benzene judgment. Texaco settled with all but one insurer, Unigard Insurance Company. Following briefing, argument, and a denial of cross-motions for summary judgment, Unigard also settled. Case law from the asbestos context was used in Texaco, but that case had some qualities that distinguished it from a typical asbestos insurance coverage action. One of the major differences was the short latency period between Mason’s exposure to benzene and his diagnosis with and death from leukemia. Because the period of time involved was so short, Texaco’s total liability to Mason was able to fit into two policy years and trigger more layers of coverage than are usually triggered in the asbestos context. Typical asbestos cases involve long term exposure and a long latency period, whereas benzene exposure and latency periods seem to vary in length. Where this time period is shorter, a benzene case will have greater differences from typical asbestos coverage litigation. However, where the exposure and latency are long-term, coverage litigation will be quite similar to asbestos.

For years following the Texaco case, benzene litigation has gone relatively unnoticed, while the courts have focused on other toxic torts. As benzene tort cases and coverage cases increase, however, we can expect that courts deciding these cases will look to precedents established in the asbestos and lead areas. That is what the court in Texaco did, although, as we discuss below, the differences between benzene and asbestos can affect the manner in which insurance applies to liabilities arising from these two products. Similarly, when lead coverage litigation first came to the forefront, the courts also looked to asbestos cases for guidance.6 Below we discuss in more detail the types of benzene tort cases being brought and some of the issues that will arise when courts are asked to determine whether insurance policies cover benzene liabilities.

02-22-2007

---

Gide, Loyrette & Nouel, PC

Gide Loyrette Nouel wins accolades from leading industry magazines:
Gide Loyrette Nouel offices in Beijing, Moscow and London have recently received accolades from a number of the UKs leading trade magazines, reinforcing the growing dominance of the Firm’s cross-border expertise in banking & finance and project finance.

Trade Finance Magazine, the UK’s only publication concentrating exclusively on the international trade finance market, granted the London and Moscow Offices the Deal of the Year 2006 for the Firm’s counsel in the following transactions:

EUR 12 million export financing of Oskol Electrometallurgical Plant arranged by BHF-BANK. In this deal, an innovative direct disbursement mechanism through foreign accounts was implemented.

EUR 50 million financing of Transbunker group in Russia arranged by Commerzbank. This deal was the first international financing in the Russian bunkering services sector. Transbunker facility was also awarded as "Deal of the Year" by Trade & Forfaiting Review magazine;

The Beijing Office received a "Euromoney Project Finance Deal of the Year" award from Project Finance Magazine for the Hynix ST Semiconductor $ 2 billion transaction. The magazine Asian Counsel has also allotted a prize to the Beijing Office for this transaction.

02-22-2007

---

Gide, Loyrette & Nouel, PC

Gide Loyrette Nouel Casablanca advised Kerzner International Limited on the financing for a tourist resort in Morocco (€ 200 million):
The Gide Loyrette Nouel Casablanca office advised the South-African company Kerzner International Limited on the financing by the Moroccan bank, Banque Centrale Populaire, of the hotel accommodation part of the Mazagan tourist resort (worth around € 200 million).

The Office also advised Kerzner International on all the corporate and real estate aspects of the hotel accommodation part of the transaction.

Kerzner International Limited, which specialises in developing integrated tourist resorts, has been selected to build the Mazagan resort (El Jadida Province). The first hotels are due to open in August 2007.

This tourist resort is one of the six Azur Plan resorts, a major national tourism project, involving the construction and development of six new beach resort sites in Morocco: Sâadia, Mogador, Lixus, Mazagan, Taghazout and Plage Blanche.

The Gide Loyrette Nouel legal team acting for Kerzner International was led by Hicham Naciri, partner, and Thomas Urlacher.

02-22-2007

---

Gibson & Behman, P.C.

GIBSON & BEHMAN’S BURLINGTON OFFICE WINS SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON RAPE AND NEGLIGENT SERVICE OF ALCOHOL
Scott Behman, Sharmili Das and Daniel J. Gibson of G&B’s Burlington office recently prevailed on a summary judgment motion regarding negligent service of alcohol. The plaintiff was an employee of the Lyons Group and on November 16, 2004, she attended an employee event at Kings. While at Kings, the plaintiff claimed that she consumed four glasses of wine and that she was intoxicated. After leaving Kings, the plaintiff was put in a cab by her coworker to go to South Station. The plaintiff got on the wrong train and claims that she was raped by an employee of the Commuter Rail. The plaintiff filed a Complaint against Lyons Group, Ltd. alleging it was negligent for failing to provide the plaintiff with a ride to her house as it was foreseeable that she could have been raped while going home.

In our Summary Judgment Motion, we argued that it was not foreseeable as a matter of law that the plaintiff would be raped. In the last several years the case law has supported our position. In fact in Carol L. Westerback v. Harold LeClair, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 144 (2000), the Appeals Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the grounds that the rape was not reasonably foreseeable. Specifically the Court stated:

There is nothing in evidence in this case to suggest that the rape of the plaintiff by a predator was reasonably foreseeable,…unless one can draw the inference simply from the general vulnerability of drunks, that they will likely be targeted by criminals—or perhaps muggers or, as here, a rapist…There must be limits to the scope or definition of reasonable foreseeability based on considerations of policy and pragmatic judgment. Id. at 148.

This decision was reaffirmed by the Superior Court in August of 2006, in Bjorgolfsson v. Destination Boston Hotel, Inc., where the plaintiff left the Beantown Pub and was subsequently raped at Nine Zero by one of its employees.

The Court allowed the Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the rape was not reasonably foreseeable and found in favor of the Lyons Group, Ltd.

02-22-2007

---

25383 matches |  9948-9954 displayed

1  1421 1422 1423 1424 1425  3627