1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Third Thursday--C&M's July Labor & Employment Update-The Supreme Court’s 2013-2014 Term in Review

Third Thursday--C&M's July Labor & Employment Update-The Supreme Court’s 2013-2014 Term in Review

Event | 07.17.14, 12:00 AM UTC - 12:00 AM UTC

Please join us for the next edition of Third Thursday – Crowell & Moring’s Labor and Employment Update, a webinar series dedicated to helping our clients stay on top of developing law and emerging compliance issues.


The Supreme Court’s just concluded its 2013-2014 term. The Court decided several important decisions in the labor & employment area. Our discussion will cover Lawson v. Fidelity Management (the SOX whistleblower case), NLRB v. Noel Canning (the NLRB appointments case), Fifth Third Bancorp. v. Dudenhoefer (the ERISA fiduciary duty case); Lane v. Franks (the public sector free speech/retaliation case) and Harris v. Quinn (the public sector "forced union dues" case). We will also share our initial thoughts on the employment law ramifications of the Court's decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. 


A panel of Crowell & Moring lawyers will review these decisions in a roundtable format that will focus on the practical implications of the Court’s decisions. We will also preview the issues presented by the decisions the Court has already decided to take up in its next term.


This webinar is scheduled for Thursday, July 17 at 12:00 pm EDT. We hope that you can join us for this timely and lively discussion.


Please click here to listen to a recording of the webinar. Please click here for a copy of the presentation.


For more information, please visit these areas: Litigation and Trial, Labor and Employment

Participants

Insights

Event | 02.20.25

Has the Buss Stopped? Recoupment Today

Has the Buss Stopped? Recoupment Today: In 1997, the California Supreme Court decided Buss v. Superior Court. In Buss, the court concluded that a liability insurer that defended a mixed action could seek reimbursement from the insured for the defense costs associated with the claims that were not even potentially covered. Since then, numerous courts have held that insurers are entitled to recoup their defense costs associated with uncovered claims or causes of action. On the other hand, a significant number of courts have rejected insurers’ right to recoupment, at least in the absence of a policy provision granting the insurer that right. Some commentators have even suggested that the current judicial trend might be away from permitting insurers to recoup their defense costs. Is that correct? Has the Buss stopped? This panel of coverage experts will analyze insurers’ claimed right to recoupment today, and offer their perspectives on what the law on recoupment should perhaps be and might be in the future.

View All Insights