loader
Page is loading...
generic_insight_detail

Commercial Litigation Update - September 2018

September 26, 2018   |   Atlanta | Chicago | Columbus | Dallas | Delaware | Elkhart | Fort Wayne | Grand Rapids | Indianapolis | Los Angeles | Minneapolis | New York | San Diego | South Bend

Welcome to the September 2018 edition of the Commercial Litigation Update, an e-publication that features articles authored by the attorneys in Barnes & Thornburg LLP's Commercial Litigation Practice Group. To read an article from this month's edition of the Commercial Litigation Update e-newsletter, click on the hyperlinks in the article below.

If you are not currently on our mailing list and would like to receive issues of the e-newsletter directly via e-mail, visit our subscription page to sign up.

Federal Rule Changes Coming in December
The U.S. Supreme Court has approved a series of rules changes that will alter several key aspects of federal civil and appellate procedure when they go into effect in December 2018. We’re taking a look at a few of the significant changes.
By Mark J. Crandley

 
 

Recent Indiana Economic Loss Rule Cases Address ‘Other Property’ Damage vs. ‘Failed Commercial Expectations’
The economic loss rule generally bars tort claims for recovery of economic losses, therefore limiting recoverable damages to those provided under contract or warranty. While different states’ applications of the rule may vary, it often serves as an effective shield for defendants in commercial litigation involving product liability or construction defect claims. Some recent Indiana state and federal court decisions, especially when compared to decisions from other states, set up an interesting dichotomy between the “other property” damage exception to the economic loss doctrine and “failed commercial expectations.”
By William E. Padgett

 

 

Conflicts Among Federal and State Wiretap Statutes Present Practical Challenges for Businesses
It may come as a surprise that your office and home security systems, cellphones (and their recordings), and telephones used for conference call purposes could also be considered “eavesdropping devices.” This article outlines how your seemingly harmless recordings and transmittals could leave you both criminally and civilly liable for violating either the Federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2520) or a state statute or criminal code.
By Erin Pauley

 

District Courts Remain Divided Over Supreme Court Decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Applicability to Class Action Claims 
Whether a non-resident defendant may be hauled into court by non-resident plaintiffs who have no connection to the forum can have enormous implications, whether tactical, financial, or otherwise. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants in a mass tort action. Read about the California case and its impact on class action litigation.
By Christine Skoczylas & Amy Michelau

 

Subscribe

Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.

View Subscription Center
Trending Connect
We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to use cookies.