Triumph cruise plaintiffs not likely to be triumphant

Cruise lines take advantage of favorable contract law to make sure their legal liability is limited.  So don’t place any bets in favor of the plaintiffs:

MIAMI - Lawsuits are already filed in this month's disastrous Triumph cruise ship voyage, but the legal deck is stacked in parent company Carnival's favor, mainly because of the restrictive terms of vacationers' tickets, governing who can sue and where.

Source: Cruise lawsuits are in, but Carnival has advantage

Class action lawsuit filed over ill-fated cruise

We all knew this was coming:

A Florida maritime law firm has filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of passengers aboard the ill-fated Carnival Triumph.

The federal lawsuit, filed Monday in Florida, says that Carnival Corp. was negligent for allowing Triumph to embark on the failed cruise when the company was aware the ship was prone to mechanical and or engine issues.

From Conservative Court to Activist Court in One Decision

When is a conservative court not a conservative court?  When it expands tort liability, apparently:

Last month, in Wyeth v. Weeks, the Alabama Supreme Court adopted an aggressive new theory of tort liability that threatens to return Alabama to a litigation era so hostile to business and industry that the state was dubbed "Tort Hell."

In Weeks, the Court held, over Justice Glenn Murdock's 46-page dissent, that "[u]nder Alabama law, a brand-name drug company may be held liable for fraud or misrepresentation...by a plaintiff claiming physical injury caused by a generic drug manufactured by a different company." Translation: In Alabama, a company can be held liable for injuries caused by the use of its competitors' products.

From: Activist Alabama Supreme Court Radically Expands Tort Liability

Mirena Lawyer Discusses Risks of Popular Birth Control Device

Mirena is one of, if not the most commonly-used IUD's in the world.  Mirena attorney Justinian Lane has recently posted several articles on his Dangerous Drugs blog relating to the risks facing Mirena users:

First, Lane discusses a 2008 case report in which Mirena device migration caused injuries to three women. In one of the three cases, the woman believed she had expelled the Mirena but it had in fact migrated and required surgery to be removed.

Next, Lane discusses a 2011 case report in which two Mirena users required laparoscopic retreival of the Mirena.  Laparoscopic surgery is less-invasive than traditional surgery.  Fortunately, the two women in this case report successfully recovered.

Finally, Lane discusses the 2002 case of a 39-year-old woman who suffered an ectopic pregnancy while using Mirena because the device had migrated into her abdomen.  Ectopic pregnancies and Mirena migration can both be life-threatening.

"I am currently reviewing potential Mirena cases on behalf of women who suffered injuries that may have been caused by Mirena.  I welcome the opportunity to speak to any women who believe their Mirena IUD migrated or otherwise injured them.  If a woman would prefer to discuss her case with another woman initially, I am fortunate enough to work with a talented attorney and several support personnel who would be happy to speak to anyone more comfortable with someone of their own gender," said Lane.

Binding arbitration clauses in insurance contracts are not enforceable in washington

Good news for opponents of mandatory arbitration clauses.

In an en banc decision issued on January 17, 2013, the Washington Supreme Court held that binding arbitration clauses in insurance contracts are unenforceable under a state statute, RCW 48.18.200(1)(b). The Court further held that the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1012, shields the relevant state statute from preemption by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), a law that liberally allows the arbitration of legal disputes. See State of Washington, Department of Transportation v. James River Insurance Company, Case No. 87644-44 (Wash. Jan. 17, 2013).

Source: Washington Supreme Court Holds That Binding Arbitration Clauses in Insurance Contracts Are Unenforceable | Troutman Sanders LLP