A new bill sitting on Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker’s desk could change the calculus for defendants in personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits by entitling plaintiffs to prejudgment interest both in future lawsuits and in lawsuits that have already been filed. The bill could make plaintiffs’ verdicts more costly for defendants while also inflating settlement amounts.

HB3360 passed both houses on January 13 and went to the governor on February 4 for signature. If the bill becomes law, it will amend the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1303) to provide plaintiffs with prejudgment interest on all damages awarded in personal injury and wrongful death cases in Illinois.[1] Previously, plaintiffs were entitled only to postjudgment interest in these cases. The bill entitles plaintiffs to collect prejudgment interest in negligence and strict liability, as well as in cases of willful or wanton or intentional misconduct. Continue Reading Companies Defending Personal Injury or Wrongful Death Suits in Illinois Will Face Prejudgment Interest If New Bill Becomes Law

In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, manufacturers of cleaning products may want to examine what their marketing says (or doesn’t say) about their products’ ability to disinfect. What manufacturers should note: Plaintiffs’ lawyers are filing an increasing number of false advertising claims alleging that cleaning and sanitizing products do not do what they purport to do. While plaintiffs must still satisfy the existing legal standards for false advertising claims, these claims may lead some manufacturers to consider adjusting their marketing strategies. Continue Reading How COVID Has Changed False Advertising Rules

After a very difficult 2020, rapid vaccine development has sparked optimism among the public and in the business community. But as we wrote last week, there’s a long road ahead while infections remain high. Today we look at considerations for a new transition period – vaccines becoming more widely available, but before the country achieves herd immunity. Continue Reading How Companies Can Approach Wider Availability of COVID-19 Vaccines in the Coming Months

As COVID-19 cases have spiked across the country, many businesses have adjusted certain operations with an eye on customer and employee safety, as well as to ensure compliance with recent changes to government orders. Some businesses have faced challenges that they have not seen since last spring. Over the summer, we explained some ways companies could prepare for a potential winter resurgence of the virus. Today we consider how companies may wish to proceed as average daily death totals in the U.S. remain high. Continue Reading Business Considerations in Light of Increases in COVID-19 Cases

Over the last several decades, there have been significant advancements in automotive technology. Today’s vehicles are equipped with more and more sophisticated computer systems than ever before. But as our reliance on technology continues to grow, so does the potential for cybersecurity attacks and resulting litigation. That’s why it’s becoming increasingly important for car manufacturers to pay close attention to the legal landscape. Continue Reading Vehicle Manufacturers Face Cybersecurity Challenges

We are delighted to share that this blog has received a 2020 “Go-To Thought Leadership Award” by the National Law Review for providing relevant analysis, knowledge, and thorough coverage of product liability and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) enforcement issues.

Continue Reading Schiff Recognized as “Go-To Thought Leader” on Product Liability Issues

Over the last few years, as the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has moved slowly in its rulemaking efforts to address tip-overs of dressers. Without a final rule, the agency has sought to use other methods to address dresser incidents, specifically its authority to investigate potentially hazardous products and its ability to request – and even compel – recalls. The agency’s process has been straightforward: It has obtained samples of countless brands and models of dressers, tested them against the relevant voluntary standard, and, where testing suggested the samples did not meet the standard, sent letters requesting recalls. Continue Reading Regulation-by-Enforcement: CPSC Targets Adult Portable Bed Rail Industry Company-by-Company

In Illinois, the collateral source rule bars defendants from submitting evidence that plaintiffs received compensation for their injuries from a collateral source. For example, if a plaintiff is injured in a car accident due to someone else’s negligent actions, often the plaintiff’s insurance company will cover part of the plaintiff’s medical expenses even before the plaintiff files a lawsuit against the tortfeasor. In that example, the defense is prohibited from submitting evidence regarding that compensation. The purpose of this rule is to prevent defendants from reducing or eliminating the amount of damages they are liable for. On May 21, 2020, the Illinois Supreme Court defined the outer limits of this rule in Mary Lewis, et al. v. Lead Industries Association, et al. (Atlantic Richfield Company, et al.),[1] holding that plaintiffs cannot use the collateral source rule to establish the injury element of a cause of action. The Lewis plaintiffs argued that the cost of the lead testing, which had been covered entirely by Medicaid, should be recoverable pursuant to the collateral source rule. The Court was unconvinced and ruled that pure economic loss claims in which a plaintiff cannot establish actual out-of-pocket expenses will fail and the collateral source rule will not provide the necessary support to overcome that hurdle in Illinois. Continue Reading Lewis Court Rejects the Use of the Collateral Source Rule to Establish Injury-in-Fact

Several state and federal courts have recently addressed a hot-button issue in product liability law: whether the manufacturer of a product that has an asbestos-containing replacement part that causes injury may be liable even if the manufacturer itself did not manufacture or supply the replacement part. Consider this example: a manufacturer produces a steam trap or boiler that contains an asbestos gasket that needs to be replaced from time to time. Third parties supply the replacement gaskets. Is the original product manufacturer liable for injuries allegedly caused by the asbestos-containing replacement gaskets? Continue Reading Whelan v. Armstrong Int’l, Inc.: Latest Asbestos Ruling Expands Manufacturer Liability for Injuries