A groundbreaking decision by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ( United States v. Bradley Heppner) has confirmed that communications with publicly available generator AI platforms are not protected by attorney-client privilege or the air product doctrine.

In a significant development for bodily-injury litigation, the Utah Supreme Court issued its decision in Gardner v. Norman, 2025 UT 47, on October 30, 2025. The Court held that a plaintiff’s recoverable medical specials are limited to the amounts actually paid to healthcare providers—whether paid by the claimant, an insurer, or another payor—and not the providers’ full, undiscounted billed charges. The Court confirmed that the negotiated payment, rather than the sticker price, represents the proper measure of economic damages for medical care.

An adjuster’s claim file often becomes a focal point in litigation. It can contain witness statements, internal evaluations, communications with experts, and detailed notes of claims handling. These materials provide insight into the insurer’s strategy and reasoning—information that plaintiffs’ counsel routinely seek through discovery. Courts, particularly in South Carolina, have shown limited tolerance for broad or unsupported privilege claims, compelling insurers and defense counsel to carefully structure how claims are documented and communicated.

If you handle claims for bars, restaurants, nightclubs, or event venues, you know one thing for sure: when alcohol is involved, the stakes are higher. Claims stemming from liquor liability can be emotionally charged, high-dollar, and public-facing, especially when injuries, fatalities, or intoxicated driving are involved.

If you’re involved in construction in New York—whether you’re an owner, general contractor, subcontractor, or insurer—you’ve almost certainly heard of Labor Law § 240(1), better known as the Scaffold Law. And if you’ve ever dealt with a claim under this statute, you know just how complicated things can get—fast.

The Texas Supreme Court on June 27, 2025 reversed a $90 million jury verdict (originally ~$89.7 M from 2018 and later ~ $100 M with interest) against Werner Enterprises and its driver for a 2014 crash on icy Interstate 20 near Odessa TX. The collision occurred when a pickup, driven too fast for icy conditions, lost control, crossed a 42‑foot median, and struck Werner’s tractor-trailer, killing one passenger and severely injuring others.

On May 28, 2025, Governor Henry McMaster signed Act 42 (H.3430) into law, amending South Carolina’s Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (S.C. Code Ann. §15-38-15) and related statutes governing alcohol sales and liability. The law takes effect January 1, 2026, applying only to claims arising on or after that date.

As artificial intelligence (AI) technologies become increasingly integrated across sectors, the way organizations represent their AI capabilities carries significant implications. While AI offers genuine innovation and efficiency, exaggerated or imprecise claims can create legal exposure, ethical concerns, and reputational risk.

The CA Supreme Court recently held in Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America that cost shifting provisions of 998 apply not only to when a party obtains a less favorable verdict than what was offered but also when a party obtains a less favorable settlement. Madrigal says this can be applied in favor of both plaintiffs and defendants.

The construction industry, by nature, carries high risk, with complex projects, numerous parties involved, and often hazardous work environments. General liability (GL) insurance is crucial for construction companies, providing coverage for third-party bodily injuries, property damage, and legal claims arising from daily operations. However, the construction sector encounters unique GL claims issues that challenge its operations, profitability, and reputation. In this article, we examine five major GL claims issues facing the construction industry today.

The trucking industry, a vital backbone of global commerce, is currently grappling with a surge in property casualty claims. This trend is reshaping the landscape for fleet owners, insurers, and drivers alike. Let’s delve into the factors contributing to this phenomenon and its implications.

Third-party administrators (TPAs) in the property casualty insurance industry play a vital role in managing claims for insurers, self-insured companies, and policyholders. They act as intermediaries, handling tasks such as processing claims, conducting investigations, and facilitating settlements. Despite their crucial function, property casualty TPAs often struggle with a poor reputation. This article delves into the factors contributing to this negative perception and why many stakeholders—insurers, policyholders, and legal professionals—express dissatisfaction with TPAs.