We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance

Results:1-10 of 99

Massachusetts Superior Court holds expert testimony regarding technical feasibility of extracting nicotine to below addiction thresholds and adding flavors to resulting product admissible because supported by scientific research and data
  • Foley Hoag LLP
  • USA
  • October 3 2011

In Haglund v. Philip Morris, Inc., No. 2001-02367, 2011 WL 2737240 (Mass. Super. Ct. Apr. 20, 2011), plaintiff sued the defendant tobacco company in Massachusetts Superior Court for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (the Massachusetts near-equivalent of strict liability) and wrongful death on behalf of her deceased relative, a smoker who died of lung cancer.

Court upholds insurer’s decision to deny benefits to smoker’s widow
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • October 26 2010

In Jackson v. Farmers New World Life Ins. Co., the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma ruled that the insurer did not act in bad faith or breach its contractual duty when it rescinded a $150,000 non-smokers life insurance policy after discovering that the insured was, in fact, a smoker.

Massachusetts Superior Court holds claim that cigarettes should have delivered lower nicotine dose does not improperly seek to ban entire product category; plaintiff need not show decedent would have used low-nicotine product to prove causation
  • Foley Hoag LLP
  • USA
  • April 14 2010

In Haglund v Philip Morris, Inc, 2009 WL 3839004 (Mass. Super. Ct. Oct. 20, 2009), the widow of a man who had died of lung cancer sued a cigarette manufacturer in Massachusetts Superior Court for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability based on the allegedly defective design of defendant’s cigarettes to deliver too much nicotine.

Liability for mesothelioma: exposure leading to a more than minimal risk will satisfy causation requirements
  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • November 10 2009

In Karen Sienkowicz (Administratix of the Estate of Enid Costello Deceased) v Greif (UK) Limited, the Court of Appeal held that occupational exposure to asbestos which has led to more than minimal risk of mesothelioma will be sufficient causation to allow a claim.

Massachusetts Supreme Court holds that asymptomatic plaintiffs may sue for medical monitoring
  • Mayer Brown
  • USA
  • November 4 2009

In a recent opinion that bucks the national trend, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court authorized plaintiffs who have no manifest physical injuries, but who assert "subcellular changes" caused by cigarette smoking, to sue for medical monitoring.

Louisiana district court dismisses “juvenile smoker" claims
  • Jorden Burt LLP
  • USA
  • July 28 2009

Expect Focus has previously reported on a number of federal court decisions rejecting plaintiffs’ theory that in checking the "no" box beside a smoking question in a life insurance application, they reasonably expected that the insured would be provided a non-smoker premium rating as opposed to a less favorable "standard" rating.

Rampton smoke-free policy doesn’t breach human rights
  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • June 19 2008

On 20 May 2008, the High Court handed down judgment in several cases that sought to challenge both the smoke-free policy at Rampton High Secure Hospital (part of Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust “the Trust”) and legislation (Regulation 10 (3) of the Smoke Free (Exemption & Vehicles) Regulations 2007) which only allowed a temporary exemption for smoking rooms in psychiatric hospitals, ending on 1 July 2008.

Premium ratings on juvenile insureds: “standard” means “standard”
  • Jorden Burt LLP
  • USA
  • April 15 2008

In so-called “ juvenile smoker” litigation, plaintiffs who purchased a life insurance policy on behalf of a minor child commonly allege that in checking the NO box beside the smoking question in a life insurance application, they reasonably expected that the insured would be provided with a non-smoker discount premium rating (as opposed to the “standard” rating used industry-wide).

Don't smoke: inflammable materials
  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • October 4 2007

We featured the English smoking ban in our May issue.

Q&A: no smoking regulations July 2007
  • DMH Stallard LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • June 14 2007

The Smoke-free Regulations 2007 will ban smoking in public places, including workplaces, in England from 1 July.