In Sciarratta v. Foremost Ins. Co. Grand Rapids Mich., 491 P.3d 7, 137 Nev. Adv. Rep. 32 (Nev. 2021), the Nevada Supreme Court recently held that a personal umbrella policy is not a “policy of motor vehicle insurance,” and therefore was not subject to a statutory requirement that such a policy’s exclusions be presented on a form promulgated by the Nevada Division of Insurance.

The Arizona courts have held that auto policies that cover a driver or passenger when they enter a vehicle may be limited to the literal meaning of the act of entering a vehicle, excluding activities that may precede entering a vehicle, like addressing other prospective passengers in the same group of friends who are waiting to enter.

Insurers selling “minimum limits” uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) auto policies in New Mexico must now provide adequate disclosure to their customers in the form of a policy exclusion describing the “illusory” nature of UIM coverage if they wish to continue to charge a premium for minimum limits UM/UIM coverage.

Harris County, Texas – home to the City of Houston – was formerly considered a relatively conservative jurisdiction compared to the rest of Texas. However, Harris County has become increasingly problematic for corporate defendants in personal injury litigation. A recent Harris County nuclear verdict solidifies this fact and places corporate defendants on notice that there may be no safe haven anywhere within the State of Texas when it comes to defending catastrophic personal injury and wrongful death claims from the “Reptile” strategy.

Clayton Act Section 7 is a statute private companies often overlook when seeking to combat mergers that are likely to degrade competition and, in the process, impair a company’s ability to participate as a market supplier or consumer. A Fourth Circuit case reminds us, however, that private parties directly can use the statute in the right circumstances to level the playing field where they operate.

Since Governor Gavin Newsom first signed Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51) into effect on October 10, 2019, there has been an ongoing battle as to the legal enforceability of this ban on arbitration as a condition of employment. In December 2019, the Chamber of Commerce challenged the law and was awarded a preliminary injunction. In September 2021, a divided three-judge panel partially reversed the injunction. On October 20, 2021, the Chamber filed a petition for a rehearing of its case en banc.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has requested comments, by November 22, 2021, on proposed revisions to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. The proposal is Phase I in a two-phased approach that will eventually undo a final rule, effective September 2020, that updated NEPA regulations to reflect decades of agency experience and caselaw interpreting the 1969 Act.