GM agrees to take responsibility for future liability claims.

The AP (6/28, Fowler) reported General Motors "has agreed to take on responsibility for future product liability claims, removing what could have been a sizable roadblock" on the company's way to a "quick sale of its assets" and emergence from bankruptcy. GM "wants to sell the bulk of its assets to a new company and leave behind unprofitable assets and other liabilities such as product-related lawsuits." But in a "concession to consumer groups and state officials who had threatened to block the sale because of product liability concerns, the new company will now assume responsibility for future claims involving vehicles made by the old company."
The Wall Street Journal (6/29, A4, Spector) reports that the agreement "represents a partial victory for more than a dozen state attorneys general and several consumer-advocacy groups."
The Washington Post (6/29, Tse, Marr) reports, "Those with past claims would have to pursue the GM left behind in bankruptcy with nothing but unwanted assets, debts and other liabilities. That means these consumers are likely to recover little, if anything." On Friday "Rep. André Carson (D-Ind.) introduced legislation that would require automakers to purchase liability insurance if they are owned by the federal government or have federal loans. This insurance must protect against past and future claims, even after a bankruptcy filing." Bloomberg News (6/28, Lui) also covered the story.
The New York Times (6/28, A20, De La Merced) reported GM and the Obama Administration's auto task force "have been negotiating with more than a dozen state attorneys general who have objected" to GM's asset sales plan.
The Washington Post (6/27, Dennis, Tse, Marr) reported earlier on the talks leading to the agreement.

Weisbrod: Healthcare reform must not limit legal rights.

In a USA Today (6/22, 2.29M) op-ed, AAJ president Les Weisbrod writes, "Discussing negligence as part of health care reform is a distraction from the debate." Fixating on the legal system "ignores the larger issue: patient safety. As many as 98,000 people die every year because of medical errors. If medical negligence becomes rarer, so will the number of injured patients who need to seek legal recourse." Weisbrod argues, "Any 'reform' that makes it more difficult for injured patients to seek legal recourse is unacceptable." He continues, "Limiting the legal rights of patients will do nothing to provide insurance coverage or lower health care costs. Eliminating errors and keeping patients safe will most certainly accomplish these goals."

Exxon owes about $450M in interest on Valdez damages.

Dow Jones Newswires (6/16, Gonzalez) reported, "A federal appeals court on Monday ruled that [Exxon Mobil Corp.] must pay interest dating back to 1996 on the $507.5 million in punitive damages awarded to plaintiffs after a Supreme Court decision last year. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled that Exxon, and not the plaintiffs, would be responsible for the $70 million it spent in legal costs during the lengthy legal battle that arose from the massive Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989." Jeffrey Fisher, "a Stanford law professor and a partner with Seattle law firm Davis Wright Tremaine, told Dow Jones Newswires that accrued compounded interest on the penalty amounted to about $500 million, but the company had negotiated with some plaintiffs to keep 11% of the payments," leaving the total owed at about $450 million.

Massey ruling said to highlight problems with judicial elections.

The Wall Street Journal (6/10, A5, Koppel) reports, "The U.S. Supreme Court's decision this week calling for judges to stay out of cases involving big political donors confronts the growing role of money in the U.S. judicial system." The Journal adds, "Political donations to judicial candidates at the highest state courts have soared in recent years, creating concerns that money is eroding public confidence in the system." Opponents of that system "say states should enact such reforms as requiring taxpayers to underwrite judicial races" or "scrap contested elections in favor of appointing judges to the bench, which is the practice of some states."
Massey ruling seen as giving states ability to develop stringent recusal standards. The Charleston Gazette (6/9, Knezevich) reported that campaign finance reform supporters in West Virginia "hope the U.S. Supreme Court's decision involving state Supreme Court Chief Justice Brent Benjamin will spur action on public-finance legislation and changes to the state's donor disclosure rules." Bert Brandenburg, director of the national organization Justice at Stake, said, "The Supreme Court opinion left the door open for all states to develop more stringent recusal standards." He added, "Now [it is] up to each state to fill in the finer points."
WPost weighs in on Massey ruling. The Washington Post (6/10) editorializes, "The Supreme Court ruled this week that a victorious judicial candidate who receives extraordinary assistance from a donor should step aside from deciding cases that are 'pending or imminent' in which the donor has a substantial stake." The Post says, "The decision raised more questions than it answered, but it should serve as a call for states to tighten judicial ethics standards and rethink judicial elections altogether." Concluding, the paper says, "States should consider abandoning judicial elections for a merit selection system that better insulates judges from the corrosive influences of money and politics."

Washington judge orders Expedia to pay $184 million to hotel customers.

The National Law Journal (6/4, Bronstad) reports, "A judge in Washington state has ordered Expedia Inc. to pay more than $184 million for breaching its contract with hotel customers by charging service fees that generated profits for the online travel booking firm." Steve Berman, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said "that the judgment was the largest to date in the state of Washington for a consumer class action."

Consumer groups, trial lawyers criticize GM, Chrysler bankruptcy plans.

The Hill (6/3, Swanson) reports, "Consumer groups and trial lawyers are crying foul over the Obama administration's bankruptcy plans for General Motors and Chrysler" because "those plans would extinguish all ongoing auto accident claims that blame a death or serious injury on a defective GM or Chrysler vehicle." According to Clarence Dilow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, "the plans are unusual in that they would prevent anyone from bringing a future liability claim against GM or Chrysler if a car already purchased from either company is defective and results in an accident causing death or serious injury." Also, he added, "it was...unusual for no money to be set aside for liability claims."
On the Wheels blog on the New York Times website (6/3) Christopher Jensen writes, "In approving the sale of most of Chrysler's assets to a new company, run by Fiat, over the weekend, Judge Arthur J. Gonzalez also granted the automaker's request that the new company not be held liable for future product-liability problems involving current owners" which "means people who own a Chrysler, Dodge or Jeep have lost their right to sue if they are injured by a safety defect." He says that consumer groups are concerned that "people who already have been injured in accidents and have filed suits against Chrysler, asserting that a vehicle had a safety defect" will not get any money from the carmaker even if they "win in court."
ClickonDetroit (6/3) also covers the story and reports, "It's like slamming the courthouse door in the victim's face." Consumer groups want the "new Chrysler" to "at least create a victim's fund."