SafetyLitigation.com
content top

Adjuster’s Only Duty To Insurer And Not To Insured Manufacturer Following Workplace Incident

An employee of a staffing agency was critically injured while working at an assembly plant when he was pulled into a laser cutting machine.  The worker brought suit against the plant owner (the “Insured”).  The Insured forwarded the complaint to its Insurer.  The Insurer then assigned the task of handling the complaint to its Adjuster.  The Adjuster notified the Insured...

Memorandum Prepared By Company President On Afternoon Of Deadly Incident Deemed Privileged

In litigation arising out of a worker’s death in a drilling rig incident, a party sought to withhold as privileged a memorandum prepared on the afternoon of the incident by the company’s president based on interviews and notes he conducted at the site of the incident.  He addressed the memorandum to the company’s current counsel and to its former counsel.  The other...

Subsequent Remedial Measures Excluded From Evidence Following Well Control Event

Following an oil and gas well blowout in Louisiana on November 18, 2009, the well operator changed its official barrier policy and circulated a new policy throughout its operations team.  On December 11, 2009, the company then conducted a safety stand down meeting that included a PowerPoint presentation as a result of the well blowout discussing operational changes and steps that...

Understand State’s Mediation Privilege Rules Before Mediation Preparations

It may be surprising to some, but not all states have the same rules regarding privilege of statements used in mediation.  The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently considered the boundaries of the privilege under Pennsylvania law.  In the case, following a workplace injury, a plaintiff received a settlement of $2.5 million, which consisted of a payment...

Coal Company’s Discharges Unlawful According To W.Va. Federal Court

After a four-day bench trial, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia concluded that a coal company had committed at least one violation of its permits by discharging high levels of ionic pollution (as measured by conductivity) into an area stream and the discharges caused or materially contributed to a significant adverse impact to the chemical and...

« Older Entries Next Entries »