The Abnormal Use blog points us to a quack expert report hypothesizing that a defective (rather than unattended) stove caused a fire that destroyed a home, defeating summary judgment, and likely leading to a settlement between the stove manufacturer and the home-owner's fire insurance. The subrogee likely won the battle, but insurance companies (and consumers as a whole) lose the war when they encourages nonsensical litigation unrelated to the facts for short-term profit. A collective action problem, to be sure.
Gameshow justice: Godwin v. Electrolux Home Prods.
- How much is the Bluetooth settlement injunction worth?
- Update on California foreign policy efforts
- Around the web, February 21
- Global warming lawsuits and insurance
- Preempro jackpot justice verdicts in Philadelphia
- Chesley experts in two cases drop testimony
- And this is why your Michigan auto insurance is so expensive: Boertmann v. Cincinnati Insurance
- Liability for thee, but not for me
- Texas Supreme Court finishes off Garza v. Merck
- Fogel v. Farmers Group: CCAF challenges $90m fee in claims-made settlement
- Update: good result in Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions
- "Win or lose, trial lawyers get millions in Vioxx fees"
- Dewey v. Volkswagen opening brief
- What the heck is going on in King County family court?
- Around the web, July 12
Center for Legal Policy at the