Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Price (1)
- Alaska Airlines Inc. v. Sweat (1)
- American Law Institute (1)
- Avery v. United States (1)
- Barr v. Matteo (1)
-
- Beard v. Mitchell (1)
- Bell v. Hood (1)
- Birnbaum v. United States (1)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1)
- Bradley v. Fisher (1)
- Brassil v. Maryland Casualty (1)
- Brockett v. Harrel Bros. (1)
- Butz v. Economou (1)
- Chaffin v. Atlanta Coca Cola Bottling Co (1)
- Comunale v. Traders & General Insurance Co. (1)
- Consumer Credit Act (1)
- Crisci v. Security Insurance Co. (1)
- Cruikshank v. United States (1)
- Davis v. Passman (1)
- Expeditions Unlimited Aquatic Enterprises Inc. v. Smithsonian Institution (1)
- Federal Tort Claims Act (1)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Moulton (1)
- Friedman v. Peoples Service Drug Stores (1)
- General Assembly (1)
- Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (1)
- Hazelton v. First National Stores (1)
- Hernandez v. Lattimore (1)
- Imbler v. Pachtman (1)
- Lackey v. Brooks (1)
- Lareau v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Insurers' Liability For Excess Judgments In In Virginia: Negligence Or Bad Faith?, Barbara A. Dalvano
Insurers' Liability For Excess Judgments In In Virginia: Negligence Or Bad Faith?, Barbara A. Dalvano
University of Richmond Law Review
Liability insurers have become increasingly concerned over the possibility that they may be responsible for satisfying excess judgments. This concern is justified. In Crisci v. Security Insurance Co., the California Supreme Court generated new developments in insurance law by predicating an insurer's liability for failing to settle claims against its insured upon a finding of mere negligence. Traditionally, an insurer was held liable for an excess judgment only if the insured was able to bear the burden of showing that the company acted in "bad faith" in failing to settle a claim. Virginia adopts this traditional view.
Virginia Should Adopt Strict Tort Recovery In Products Liability, John P. Rowley Iii, Sally Y. Wood
Virginia Should Adopt Strict Tort Recovery In Products Liability, John P. Rowley Iii, Sally Y. Wood
University of Richmond Law Review
Since World War H, revolutionary changes have overtaken the American law of products liability. Such changes have been in response to the increase in consumer injuries resulting from defects in sophisticated products mass-produced by sophisticated manufacturing processes. This has occurred during a time of increased litigiousness and general awareness of the need for consumer protection. Accordingly, products liability suits have multiplied, and the legal theories used to determine the outcome of such suits have similarly been in an era of dramatic transition. Such legal changes have significantly affected both tort and warranty law across the country. Until 1960 products liability …
Constitutional Torts And The Federal Torts Claims Act, Michael W. Dolan
Constitutional Torts And The Federal Torts Claims Act, Michael W. Dolan
University of Richmond Law Review
The relatively recent expansion of the liability of federal employees for so-called constitutional torts and the accompanying contraction of the immunity of those employees against suits for such torts have resulted in significant problems for the federal government, its employees, and even for victims of official misconduct. After briefly describing the law of constitutional torts and official immunity, this article will examine a proposal to amend the Federal Tort Claims Act to make the Government the exclusive defendant in constitutional tort suits.
The Covenant Not To Sue: Virginia's Effort To Bury The Common Law Rule Regarding The Release Of Joint Tortfeasors, Linda Flory Rigsby
The Covenant Not To Sue: Virginia's Effort To Bury The Common Law Rule Regarding The Release Of Joint Tortfeasors, Linda Flory Rigsby
University of Richmond Law Review
The 1979 Virginia General Assembly turned the last shovel of earth onto the grave of the common law "release rule"' by adopting the covenant not to sue as a viable settlement device in joint tortfeasor actions. By this statutory adoption, Virginia became the last state to recognize, either by statute or judicial mandate, that a properly drawn covenant not to sue can act to release one or more tortfeasors without automatically releasing all those tortfeasors liable for the same injury or wrongful death. Judicial interpretations of the covenant not to sue, particularly those of California, Michigan and North Carolina, will …