We have noticed a troubling trend in recent product liability cases in which plaintiffs' counsel will not agree to a protective order concerning a manufacturer's confidential documents without the inclusion of a so-called "sharing provision". These provisions generally permit plaintiffs' attorneys, or any other parties subject to the protective order, to indefinitely retain a defendant's confidential documents and share them with third parties as they see fit. Opposing counsel often justify such provisions by arguing that the confidential documents will only be shared with parties in other pending or litigation involving the same product. However, many manufacturers understandably view these provisions as defeating the entire purpose of a protective order. ... Continue Reading
Starting and running a business is a complex venture that comes with many daily challenges. But, long-term planning to ensure a smooth transition out of a business is an even greater challenge, one that is often ignored until it is too late. Some entrepreneurs start out with the assumption they are going to sell their company within a few years, but this usually does not happen, and unfortunately, most business owners do not have an end-game. The most common reasons entrepreneurs and business owners lack of long-term planning are: (i) fear of failing in the short-term; (ii) day-to-day operations keep them busy, preventing them from focusing on their long-term goals; (iii) they do not have a clear idea of what to do with their business, specifically whether to sell to management, employees, or a third-party, or pass it on to their children. ... Continue Reading
When drafting contracts, parties must always consider the risk associated with the transaction. One of the most common ways to limit risk is by including an indemnity provision. However, as a best practice, indemnity alone is not enough to limit a contracting party's risk. In addition, a duty to defend provision should also be included as part of the indemnity provision of every contract. This article will examine the significance of each. ... Continue Reading
Steve Miller, serving as counsel for Milliken & Company, urge the high court to reverse the Court of Appeals decision, arguing that it "overrides the plain language of Georgia's antiindemnity statute," Georgia Code § 13-8-2 (b). That statute prohibits only indemnity agreements "1) where the injury is caused by or resulting from the 'sole negligence' of the indemnitee," which in this case would be Milliken, and "2) that relate to the construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance of a building structure, appurtenance, or appliance." ... Continue Reading
Large motor carriers and their workers' compensation insurers are not strangers to claims brought by contractor truck drivers claiming to be employees of the carrier. A type of contractor commonly seen in these cases is the "owner-operator", who Georgia law defines as "an equipment lessor who leases his vehicular equipment with a driver to a carrier." ... Continue Reading
The Journal is a publication for the clients of Drew Eckl & Farnham, LLP. It is written in a general format and is not intended to be legal advice to any specific circumstance. Legal Opinions may vary when based upon subtle factual differences. All rights reserved.
H. Michael Bagley