Uncategorized

November 26, 2013

Web retailer fines customer for posting negative review

You might want to think twice before posting that scathing review. Internet retailer Kleargear.com threatened to fine customer Jen Palmer $3,500 if she didn’t remove the criticism she had posted about the company on Ripoffreport.com. Palmer tried, but Ripoffreport.com told her she would have to pay $2,000 to remove the post, so she ignored the demand. Ripoffreport.com founder Ed Magedson said in a comment to ABAJournal.com that the site would never take down a consumer complaint, for any amount of money.

Although Kleargear did not sue to force Palmer and her husband to pay the $3,500 fine after its demand was ignored, it did report her as delinquent to credit agencies, which has made it impossible for the Utah couple to get loans. The couple has disputed the negative credit-report entry to no avail.

A Kleargear company spokesperson defended the charge in an e-mail as justified by the terms of use.TechCrunch and Techdirt provide the text of the anti-disparagement provision, which states in part: “In an effort to ensure fair and honest public feedback, and to prevent the publishing of libelous content in any form, your acceptance of this sales contract prohibits you from taking any action that negatively impacts KlearGear.com, its reputation, products, services, management or employees.” There’s some question, however, whether the provision was in force in 2008 when Palmer posted the review.

October 11, 2013

New Ruling on Bad Faith Liability

by Blady Workforce Law Group, APC

The California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District) issued the decision Reid v. Mercury Insurance Company on October 7, 2013, in which it held that there is no “bad faith” liability for an insurer in failing to initiate a settlement or offer limits, even when there is clear liability and excess exposure, unless (1) there is a limits demand made by the caimant or (2) the claimant clearly conveys to the insurer an interest in discussing settlement but the insurer ignores the opportunity to the insured’s detriment.

In this case, the insured‟s liability was clear almost immediately after the collision. The insurer’s claims manager had decided, within a little over six weeks, that while the insurer needed medical records, the insurer must tender the policy limits to the third party claimant “as soon as we have enough [information] available to do so.” No settlement demand was made by the claimant, who filed suit against the insured three and one-half months after the collision. The medical records were not forthcoming from the claimant until seven months after the collision, and another three months passed before the insurer offered its policy limits. Under these circumstances, the trial court found the insurer not liable to its insured for bad faith failure to settle and granted the insurer‟s motion for summary judgment.

The Appeals Court upheld the decision that an insurer’s duty to settle is not precipitated solely by the likelihood of an excess judgment against the insured, and in the absence of a settlement demand or any other manifestation the injured party is interested in settlement, when the insurer has done nothing to foreclose the possibility of settlement, there is no liability for bad faith failure to settle.

August 15, 2013

Injuries at Jump Gyms Spur Safety Concerns

by Blady Workforce Law Group, APC

Local authorities in California and Utah are cracking down on trampoline parks amid rising injury rates, according to CBS News.

Last September, the American Academy of Pediatrics discouraged the recreational use of trampolines after finding evidence for risk of major injuries such as ankle injuries, shin fractures, spinal injuries and head and neck injuries, which in rare cases resulted in brain damage.

The report found that in 2009 alone, 70 injuries occurred for every 100,000 kids between 0 and 4 using a trampoline, and 160 injuries for every 100,000 kids 5 to 14 years old . That’s approximately 98,000 trampoline injuries per year.

June 28, 2013

Monster Beverage Sued in California Teen’s Death

by Blady Workforce Law Group, APC

The mother of a teenager who died from cardiac arrhythmia last year is blaming his death on Monster Beverage. In a lawsuit filed Tuesday, accordnig to AP, she alleges that his death was caused by habitually drinking the company’s energy drink.

Nineteen-year-old Alex Morris went into cardiac arrest during the early morning of July 1 and was was pronounced dead at the hospital. The lawsuit filed in Alameda County Superior Court alleges Morris would not have died if he did not drink two cans of Monster’s energy drink every day for the three years before his death, including the day he died. Morris’ mother, Paula Morris, is listed as a plaintiff in the case.

The lawsuit comes after the family of 14-year-old Anais Fournier of Maryland also sued the company last year after she consumed two 24-ounce cans of Monster and died.