<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>LADC &#187; Other Developments</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ladc.org/category/recent-developments/other-developments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ladc.org</link>
	<description>The Louisiana Association of Defense Counsel</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:05:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>New Proposal Would Require Insurance Defense Lawyers to Notify Plaintiffs of Settlement</title>
		<link>http://ladc.org/2010/01/new-proposal-would-require-insurance-defense-lawyers-to-notify-plaintiffs-of-settlement/</link>
		<comments>http://ladc.org/2010/01/new-proposal-would-require-insurance-defense-lawyers-to-notify-plaintiffs-of-settlement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:44:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dane Ciolino</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Other Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ladc.org/?p=209</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[New rules and legislation may one day require insurance-defense lawyers and their clients to notify plaintiffs directly of settlements. For more information, see  http://bit.ly/6pht25.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>New rules and legislation may one day require insurance-defense lawyers and their clients to notify plaintiffs directly of settlements. For more information, see  <a rel="http://bit.ly/plugins/iframe?hashUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2F6pht25" href="http://bit.ly/6pht25" target="_blank">http://bit.ly/6pht25</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ladc.org/2010/01/new-proposal-would-require-insurance-defense-lawyers-to-notify-plaintiffs-of-settlement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Insurance; UM Coverage; Burdens of Proof</title>
		<link>http://ladc.org/2010/01/insurance-um-coverage-burdens-of-proof/</link>
		<comments>http://ladc.org/2010/01/insurance-um-coverage-burdens-of-proof/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:06:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dane Ciolino</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Other Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ladc.org/?p=203</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the case of an offending vehicle operated by its owner, once the insured claimant has proven the existence of the required primary policy of liability insurance for the offending vehicle and damages exceeding in monetary value the applicable limits of that policy, he has established a prima facie case for recovery under underinsured motorist coverage. At that point, the burden rests with the UIM insurer to put forth evidence of other underlying liability coverage, or evidence supporting a legal presumption of such coverage, sufficient to shift the burden back to the insured claimant.. Gillmer v Stuckey, First Circuit, No. 2009 CA 0901 (12/23/09) (McClendon, J, dissenting).]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the case of an offending  vehicle operated by its owner, once the insured claimant has proven the existence of the required primary policy of liability insurance for the offending vehicle and damages exceeding in monetary value the applicable limits of that policy, he has established a prima facie case for recovery under underinsured motorist coverage. At that point, the burden rests with the UIM insurer to put forth evidence of other underlying liability coverage, or evidence supporting a legal presumption of such coverage, sufficient to shift the burden back to the insured claimant..  <em>Gillmer v Stuckey</em>, First Circuit, No. 2009 CA 0901 (12/23/09) (McClendon, J, dissenting).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ladc.org/2010/01/insurance-um-coverage-burdens-of-proof/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Worker Compensation; Penalties</title>
		<link>http://ladc.org/2010/01/worker-compensation-penalties/</link>
		<comments>http://ladc.org/2010/01/worker-compensation-penalties/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jan 2010 16:50:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dane Ciolino</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Other Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Recent Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ladc.org/?p=196</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Where there are three separate mileage submissions by the claimant which were either underpaid or paid late for different reasons, multiple penalties, totaling $9,000, are warranted under R.S. 23:1201(F).  Burnett v Village of Estherwood, Third Circuit, No. WCA 09-680 (12/9/09)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Where there are three separate mileage submissions by the claimant which were either underpaid or paid late for different reasons, multiple penalties, totaling $9,000, are warranted under R.S. 23:1201(F).  Burnett v Village of Estherwood, Third Circuit, No. WCA 09-680 (12/9/09)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ladc.org/2010/01/worker-compensation-penalties/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lawyers</title>
		<link>http://ladc.org/2009/12/lawyers/</link>
		<comments>http://ladc.org/2009/12/lawyers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:00:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dane Ciolino</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Other Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ladc.org/?p=134</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Can an attorney who receives electronic documents from opposing counsel, by discovery or otherwise, violate any ethics rules by searching for confidential metadata that may have been transmitted inadvertently in the documents? Vermont has said that the lawyer may violate the rules, but there is a split among states on the issue. See Vermont Bar Association Professional Responsibility Section, Opinion 2009-1.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can an attorney who receives electronic documents from opposing counsel, by discovery or otherwise, violate any ethics rules by searching for confidential metadata that may have been transmitted inadvertently in the documents? Vermont has said that the lawyer may violate the rules, but there is a split among states on the issue. See Vermont Bar Association Professional Responsibility Section, Opinion 2009-1.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ladc.org/2009/12/lawyers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Arbitration</title>
		<link>http://ladc.org/2009/12/arbitration-2/</link>
		<comments>http://ladc.org/2009/12/arbitration-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:59:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dane Ciolino</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Other Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ladc.org/?p=132</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. Fifth Circuit, en banc, has ruled that the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards is a treaty and not an act of Congress, and it applies to compel a Louisiana self-insurer to arbitrate its dispute with two reinsurance companies despite R.S. 22:629, which bars arbitration agreements in insurance contracts. Safety National Cas. Corp. v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, ___ F 3d ___ (2009) (Clement, J. concurs; Elrod, Smith and Garza, JJ, dissent)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Fifth Circuit, en banc, has ruled that the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards is a treaty and not an act of Congress, and it applies to compel a Louisiana self-insurer to arbitrate its dispute with two reinsurance companies despite R.S. 22:629, which bars arbitration agreements in insurance contracts. Safety National Cas. Corp. v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, ___ F 3d ___ (2009) (Clement, J. concurs; Elrod, Smith and Garza, JJ, dissent)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ladc.org/2009/12/arbitration-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Abandonment</title>
		<link>http://ladc.org/2009/12/abandonment/</link>
		<comments>http://ladc.org/2009/12/abandonment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:58:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dane Ciolino</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Other Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ladc.org/2009/12/abandonment/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The amendment to CCP Article 561(A)(2) governing abandonment of claims where the failure to take a step in the prosecution or disposition was a direct result of hurricanes Katrina and Rita should not be applied retroactively where the three year period had not run on August 26, 2005, but had tolled before the July 9, 2007, effective date of the amendment. Henry v SBA Shipyard, Inc., Third Circuit, No. CW 09-426 (11/10/09) (en banc; Cooks, Saunders and Gremillion, JJ, dissent) See also Morgan v La. Dept. of Pub. Saf. &#038; Corr., Third Circuit, No. CA 08-750 (11/25/09)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The amendment to CCP Article 561(A)(2) governing abandonment of claims where the failure to take a step in the prosecution or disposition was a direct result of hurricanes Katrina and Rita should not be applied retroactively where the three year period had not run on August 26, 2005, but had tolled before the July 9, 2007, effective date of the amendment. Henry v SBA Shipyard, Inc., Third Circuit, No. CW 09-426 (11/10/09) (en banc; Cooks, Saunders and Gremillion, JJ, dissent) See also Morgan v La. Dept. of Pub. Saf. &#038; Corr., Third Circuit, No. CA 08-750 (11/25/09)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://ladc.org/2009/12/abandonment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
