Insights

Washington – August 18, 2022: The 2023 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® has recognized 54 firm lawyers as "Best Lawyers" and 32 lawyers as “Ones to Watch.”

Washington – August 19, 2021: The 2022 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® has recognized 53 firm lawyers as "Best Lawyers" and 13 lawyers as “Ones to Watch.” The publication also named partner William H. Frankel the Best Lawyers 2022 Copyright Law "Lawyer of the Year" in Chicago.

Washington – August 20, 2020: The 2021 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® has named two Crowell & Moring lawyers – Laura A. Foggan and Paul W. Mourning– as a "Lawyer of the Year" in their respective categories and regions. The publication also recognized 46 firm lawyers as "Best Lawyers" and nine lawyers as “Ones to Watch.”

California employers will not face tort liability to employees’ household members who contract COVID-19, the California Supreme Court ruled on July 6.  Answering questions certified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and declining to follow its ruling in “take-home” asbestos cases,[i] the Court in Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., held that “recognizing a duty of care to nonemployees in this context would impose an intolerable burden on employers and society in contravention of public policy.” [ii] California thus becomes the first state to reject, at the highest court level, the potentially limitless liability for negligence based on employee transmission of the coronavirus.[iii]

Can a state court, consistent with the Due Process Clause, compel a foreign corporation seeking to do business in the state to consent to general (“all-purpose”) personal jurisdiction?  Until its decision this week in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.,[1] the majority of courts forecast that the Supreme Court would answer that question with a resounding “no.”  Instead, five Justices in Mallory agreed that Pennsylvania’s business registration statute, which requires foreign corporations to consent to the state’s personal jurisdiction over “any cause of action” brought against them in state court, did not violate the Due Process Clause.[2] The decision is sure to encourage forum shopping and perhaps lead other states to adopt similar “consent-by-registration” statutes.

Reaffirming its landmark decision in Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp.,[1] New York’s highest court last week overturned a $16.5 million jury verdict for the husband of a woman who had died from peritoneal mesothelioma allegedly caused by a decade of daily exposure to asbestos-contaminated talcum powder. [2] The ruling is the latest in a series by the Court of Appeals requiring toxic tort plaintiffs to prove exposure “to sufficient levels of the toxin to cause the illness.”[3] The Court used the case to reiterate that conclusory assertions of causation, or qualitative terms such as “excessive,” are insufficient to meet the Parker causation standard. 

Washington, D.C. based-partner and chair of the firm's Mass Tort, Product, and Consumer Litigation Group, Clifford J. Zatz, answers questions for Product Liability Law360 in their "Practice Leader Q&A Series." Cliff describes one of the most challenging cases he's been part of, and lessons learned from when he first started practicing law.

Torts Group partners Clifford J. Zatz and Kevin C. Mayer write about the difficulties with defending “tort of outrageous conduct” cases (also known as intentional infliction of emotional distress) in the Defense Research Institute’s (DRI) For The Defense publication.

Crowell & Moring LLP client Invenergy Wind LLC is featured for its fight to build a wind farm in Greenbrier County, WV. The first of its kind case presents important issues of first impression for the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and its relationship to wind energy projects on private lands. Crowell & Moring defended Invenergy in a four-day bench trial in federal court in Greenbelt, MD that concluded on October 29. The ruling is forthcoming. The trial team included partners Clifford J. Zatz and Kirsten L. Nathanson, associates Jessica A. Hall, and Antonio Gonzalez Mendoza, with support from ESA attorneys Steven P. Quarles, J. Michael Klise, and Thomas R. Lundquist.

A game-changer has emerged for businesses, policymakers, and lawyers, and it's called the "Internet of Things" (IoT). It's one of the most transformative and fast-paced technology developments in recent years. Billions of vehicles, buildings, process control devices, wearables, medical devices, drones, consumer/business products, mobile phones, tablets, and other "smart" objects are wirelessly connecting to, and communicating with, each other... and raising unprecedented legal and liability issues.

Now in its fifth year, ACI’s Chemical Products Liability and Environmental Litigation conference brings together an unparalleled faculty of litigation attorneys directly involved in key decisions throughout the year, as well as industry in-house counsel and the nation’s leading jurists with on-point chemical products experience. This essential litigation forum is designed to educate practitioners—both in-house and outside counsel—on the leading trends in chemical products liability and environmental litigation.

This year’s Toxic Torts and Environmental Law Seminar will provide insider knowledge and critical information that you cannot get anywhere else—information you need to make sure you are in the forefront of emerging toxic tort and environmental issues. This year’s program includes presentations by several in-house counsel, a former senior EPA lawyer and enforcement official, and the vice president of regulatory and technical affairs of the American Chemistry Counsel. In addition, one of the most famous plaintiffs’ attorneys in the country will demonstrate and then discuss the tactics and strategies behind his winning trial techniques. From beginning to end, this program will provide concrete practice pointers and real-life “take-aways” that you can use in your law practice immediately. Please join us in New Orleans and learn from nationally recognized lawyers and scientists, as you network with colleagues and industry professionals from all across the country.

The COVID-19 pandemic poses unique challenges at the intersection of employment law and tort liability.  As workplaces reopen and employees return to them, many businesses will encounter risks to employee safety and personal injury litigation they couldn’t have imagined just a few months ago.  Every organization, from the big-box store to the boutique, from the factory to the digital startup, must be prepared for claims of COVID-19 transmission to workers, their families, and others on the premises.  These claims will test the boundaries of traditional tort law principles, as the standard of care evolves at an unprecedented pace.  The first cases have already been filed. 

It’s been said that “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth can even pull its boots on.” In today’s world of online commentary and social media, this is truer than ever.

Every business is potentially vulnerable to a cyber attack or data breach.What do you do when you are attacked by an insider or hacked from outside? As the world becomes more “connected,” how do you protect yourself from attempts to access the personal information that you hold or disrupt your services or even attempts to take virtual control of connected devices? As businesses compete in an electronic world where marketing has moved from flyers and pamphlets to “robo calls” and direct text messages, how is it possible for a legitimate business to be liable for tens of thousands of illegal telemarketing calls to consumers?