Law Commons^™

Wind Versus Water: Why 'Proximate Cause' Should Help, Not Hurt, Policyholders Who Seek Coverage For Hurricane Claims, Rhonda D. Orin

ExpressO

“Wind Versus Water: Why ‘Proximate Cause’ Should Help, Not Hurt, Policyholders Who Seek Coverage for Hurricane Claims” examines the clash between the “efficient proximate cause” doctrine of insurance law, which holds that coverage exists if the dominant cause of a loss is a covered peril, with the now-ubiquitous “anti-concurrent causation clauses” added to homeowners’ and business insurance policies, which exclude coverage for damages caused by a named event (such as flood) “regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.” The article reviews various state laws and court rulings that have placed …

An Economic Assessment Of Damage Caps In Medical Malpracitce Litigation Imposed By State Laws And The Implications For Federal Policy And Law, Paul Wazzan

ExpressO

Many states have implemented laws which limit non-economic (e.g., pain and suffering) damages as a result of medical malpractice. These laws are seen by proponents as reducing medical malpractice insurance costs and preserving access to health care – especially for lower income individuals. Opponents believe that individuals are harmed through being prevented from seeking a full measure of redress for medical malpractice incidents, by reducing access to the court system, and that these laws simply enrich insurance companies and doctors.

Federal lawmakers are currently studying the potential effect of uniform medical malpractice damage limits at the national level. It is …

Breaking The Bank: Revisiting Central Bank Of Denver After Enron And Sarbanes-Oxley, Celia Taylor

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Learning The Wrong Lessons From "An American Tragedy": A Critique Of The Berger-Twerski Informed Choice Proposal, David E. Bernstein

George Mason University School of Law Working Papers Series

This paper is a critique of Margaret Berger and Aaron Twerski, “Uncertainty and Informed Choice: Unmasking Daubert”, forthcoming the Michigan Law Review. Berger and Twerski propose that courts recognize a cause of action that would allow plaintiffs who claim injury from pharmaceutical products, but who do not have sufficient evidence to prove causation, to recover damages for deprivation of informed choice. Berger and Twerski claim inspiration from the litigation over allegations that the morning sickness drug Bendectin caused birth defects. Considering the criteria Berger and Twerski suggest for their proposed cause of action in the context of Bendectin, it appears …