Plaintiffs from 7 states have filed personal injury suits against Pfizer for alleged undisclosed risks of the popular cholesterol-blocking drug Lipitor. Read the full story here: Lipitor Litigation

In yet another case of an insurance company having to be compelled to do right by its own insured, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that insurance companies could not base underinsured motorist coverage on the liable party’s coverage limits without regard to the actual recovery.
Alison Welin was covered under an American Family policy that included $300,000 in underinsured motorist coverage. She was injured in an accident, and the other driver was determined to be at fault. The responsible driver had $300,000 in liability coverage.
Welin received $250,000 from the responsible party’s insurance carrier. The other $50,000 went to another victim.
It is undisputed that Welin’s injuries exceeded the $250,000 she received from the other driver’s insurance company. However, American Family determines “underinsured” based on the liability limits of the responsible driver’s policy, not on actual payments received. Since the responsible driver’s policy value was equal to Welin’s underinsured motorist coverage, American Family determined that the driver was not “underinsured” by the company’s definition, and that Welin was not entitled to additional compensation from her underinsured motorist coverage.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that insurance companies cannot base the determination as to whether or not a motorist is “underinsured” on policy limits alone, without regard to the number of personal injury victims and actual recovery.

In 2000, a pedestrian bridge collapsed at Lowe’s Motor Speedway in North Carolina, injuring more than 100 people. The cause of the accident is clear: the company that built the bridge used an improper additive in the cement–an additive that corroded the bridge’s steel cables and weakened the bridge to the point of collapse.
With liability so clear, the personal injury victims hurt in the fall might have expected that they’d have little difficulty recovering for their injuries, but a three-judge appellate panel ruled this week that the claims are barred by a state law that protects manufacturers from negligence claims after six years. The theory behind the statute is that all products are subject to detioration over time. However, its application in a construction case, where the “product” in question was clearly intended and expected to last for more than six years, creates a frightening precedent that could allow negligent workmanship to go unpunished–and injury victims to go uncompensated–so long as the “product” endures for more than six years.

Not long ago, we posted an explanation of the value of punitive damages, and mentioned in that post that Merck had reportedly calculated that it could save $229 million dollars by delaying a change in the warnings associated with Vioxx. A jury sought to cost Merck exactly that much through a punitive damage award, hoping to ensure that the pharmaceutical giant didn’t profit from it’s bad decision. Punitive damage caps undermined that effort, but it looks like Merck ended up paying the price anyway–unfortunately, without benefit to the plaintiffs. Op Ed News is reporting that during 2005, Merck paid $285 million in legal defense costs related to Vioxx. It’s nice that Merck’s casual decision to risk the lives of its customers is costing them, but unfortunate that it’s the defense attorneys rather than the injured parties who profit.

A change in Rhode Island personal injury law will make it easier for victims of the 2003 night club fire that killed 100 people and injured more than 200 others.
Surviving victims have faced difficulties in obtaining compensation needed for medical and living expenses because there are multiple defendants and the Rhode Island law in effect until this week–and still in effect for most cases–mandates a significant reduction in an award against other defendants if the defendant who settled is found to have been significantly at fault.
The new law changes the formula for “disaster” cases in which 25 or more people are killed, opening the door for injury victims to settle without risking their claims against other defendants.