News Alerts

On January 11, 2026, Governor Murphy entered Executive Order 411, which provided clemency for the purpose of jury service to individuals convicted of crimes in New Jersey. The clemency Order applies only to individuals convicted of crimes in New Jersey and to those individuals who served their sentences including probation and parole. The clemency Order does not apply to individuals convicted of impeachment or treason. The Order also does not preclude the examination of potential jurors related to criminal convictions during voir dire and permits for-cause challenges to prospective jurors related to the individuals’ criminal records.

To read the full text of the Executive Order, click here.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D‑NY) and Congresswoman Madeleine Dean (D‑PA‑04) have reintroduced the PFAS Accountability Act, a federal bill that would create a new cause of action for individuals significantly exposed to PFAS (“forever chemicals”) and authorize courts to award medical monitoring. The legislation, marks the latest effort to establish nationwide PFAS liability standards after similar proposals failed in prior congressional sessions.

The bill would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to allow individuals who have been “significantly exposed” to PFAS—or who have reasonable grounds to suspect such exposure—to bring suit individually or as a class in federal district court. Claims could be asserted against any entity involved in manufacturing the PFAS at issue that foresaw, or reasonably should have foreseen, resulting human exposure.

The legislation creates rebuttable presumptions of significant exposure, including where PFAS was released into areas where an individual would have been exposed for at least one cumulative year, or where testing shows PFAS present in the individual’s body. Defendants may rebut the presumption with independent testing.

Courts would be authorized to award medical monitoring upon a showing that exposure increased the risk of disease and that additional medical examinations would be effective in detecting PFAS‑related conditions. Where scientific data is insufficient, courts may temporarily lower the standard of proof and may order studies to determine whether exposure increased disease risk.

The bill defines PFAS broadly—any substance with at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom—potentially expanding the scope of covered chemicals beyond existing EPA regulatory definitions.

If enacted, the PFAS Accountability Act would materially expand litigation exposure for PFAS manufacturers and related entities by creating a new federal cause of action, easing plaintiffs’ evidentiary burdens, and authorizing medical‑monitoring awards even in the absence of present physical injury. Companies involved in PFAS production, use, or historical disposal should monitor the bill closely as it moves through Congress.

To read the full text of the PFAS Accountability Act, click here.

Governor Kathy Hochul has issued her third veto of the Grieving Families Act (S.4423), a bill that would significantly expand damages available in New York wrongful death actions. The legislation—passed repeatedly with bipartisan support—would allow recovery for grief, anguish, loss of companionship, and other non economic harms, and would broaden the category of eligible beneficiaries to include domestic partners and individuals standing in loco parentis.

Supporters argue that New York’s current 187-year-old statute, which limits recovery to pecuniary losses, disproportionately undervalues the lives of children, seniors, low wage earners, and non working family members.

Healthcare systems, insurers, and hospital associations continue to oppose the bill, warning that expanded damages could increase malpractice premiums and strain already fragile hospital budgets. The governor has cited these economic concerns in each veto.

With the 2026 legislative session approaching, lawmakers and advocacy groups are preparing to reintroduce the measure. Clients with exposure to wrongful death claims—particularly healthcare providers, insurers, and self insured entities—should monitor developments closely, as any future enactment would materially expand potential liability in New York.

You can review a complete article from Law.com on this legislation, here.

You can review the complete Grieving Families Act (S.4423), here.

The ride-hailing company Uber Technologies in recent months has filed a series of suits under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) against a dozen personal injury lawyers and firms in New York, Florida, California, and Pennsylvania. Uber alleges they schemed with medical providers and others to transform low-value auto accident claims involving Uber drivers into million-dollar-plus lawsuits, to take advantage of the company’s hefty insurance policies.
Defendants in these lawsuits include Wingate, Russotti, Shapiro, Moses & Halperin in Manhattan, recently sued in the Southern District of New York in September, as well as Simon & Simon in Philadelphia.

Uber’s lawsuits all stem from the common circumstance that rideshare companies are required to carry higher insurance limits than ordinary drivers. Uber’s liability coverage is $1 million in California, Florida and Pennsylvania, according to the company. In New York State, it’s $1.25 million. Uber says approximately 45% of the fare of every Uber ride in Los Angeles, for example, goes to mandated insurance costs. Uber says scammers are well aware of this coverage, which allegedly makes the company a target for fake personal injury claims, inflated medical billing and even staged accidents.

In each of the RICO suits, Uber alleges plaintiffs’ lawyers funneled clients to “unscrupulous” medical providers. These doctors, chiropractors and physical therapists, who are also named as defendants in the suits, allegedly provided unnecessary medical procedures to treat negligible or non-existent injuries, creating false evidence of injuries to drive up the cost of settling the cases. In exchange, the medical providers got a steady stream of patients and in some instances, the ability to charge premium rates for their services, Uber alleges, calling the arrangements “a kickback.”

In the suit filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania last month, for example, Uber alleged plaintiffs’ lawyers directed a network of medical providers to perform procedures including spinal injections and radio frequency ablations that “bear no relationship with any underlying injury and are in most instances unnecessary,” according the lawyers from Perkins Coie.

Winning a RICO case can result in treble damages plus attorneys’ fees.

Uber’s lawsuits follow on the heels of a series of similar lawsuits instituted in New York by major insurance providers, those filed by Union Mutual in May this year against firms like Subin Associates, LLP, and others filed by GEICO, Allstate, Progressive, and Roosevelt Road.

Tiger Joyce, president of the pro-business American Tort Reform Association, said he believes the first successful case was in 2013, when CSX Transportation sued two attorneys and a doctor in West Virginia, alleging that they conspired to fabricate asbestos claims. A jury sided with CSX, which netted a $7.3 million payout for damages and legal fees.

Other recent cases have been unsuccessful. For example, a federal judge in Chicago in March dismissed a RICO suit by plastic pipe maker JM Eagle against a plaintiffs’ firm that had filed hundreds of asbestos personal injury cases against it. The judge ruled that JM Eagle failed to show that the injury lawyers, asbestos plaintiffs and other witnesses were functioning as an enterprise — a “continuing unit” and sharing “a common purpose” — though the company has been given leave to amend its complaint.

For corporations, “these are difficult cases to win, because of the complexity and the requirement to prove an enterprise,” Joyce told Reuters. “They are not for the faint of heart.” Civil racketeering claims require detailed evidence of a pattern of unlawful acts committed by members of an “enterprise” working toward a common purpose.

Defendant Downtown LA Law Group stated that Uber’s suit against it “represents a concerning effort to undermine the rights of individuals and the attorneys who advocate for them.”

You can view the complete article published by Reuters, here.

On March 14, 2025, a jury in Essex County Superior Court awarded $20,080,976 to Nicolas Dephillips, a former apprentice electrician who was left partly and permanently paralyzed after a fall at a Newark construction site. The verdict followed a monthlong trial before Judge Annette Scoca.

Dephillips, 21 at the time of the accident, was installing wiring for a helipad atop the Prudential Center when he fell 15 feet through a drop ceiling. He sustained spinal fractures at C6 and C7, among other injuries, resulting in paralysis from the chest down – leaving him with use of his arms and limited use of his hands.

The jury apportioned 36% liability to the non-settling defendant who remained at trial. Prior to trial Plaintiff settled with another defendant for $21M, making Plaintiff’s potential total recovery for the case $28M, assuming the verdict is sustained.

The principal theory of liability was the general contractor’s alleged failure to enforce its own safety protocols. Defense Counsel maintained that safety responsibilities rested with the settling defendant and Plaintiff. The jury allocated 8% liability to Plaintiff.

This case marks one of the largest construction injury recoveries in New Jersey history and highlights the legal significance of contractor safety obligations on multi-employer worksites.

You can read the complete Law.com article reporting on the verdict here.

A federal trademark suit filed on August 11 is drawing attention in the Philadelphia legal community. Attorney Joel. J. Kofsky, of Philly Injury Lawyer, has sued Spear Greenfield Richman Weitz & Taggart in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging unauthorized use of his registered slogan, “We Win or It’s Free.”

Kofsky claims he began using the phrase in 2011 and secured federal registration in 2018. The complaint alleges that Spear Greenfield adopted the slogan in its advertising and online content starting in 2021, with expanded use in 2024 across social media and blog platforms.

The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, damages, and attorney fees, citing dilution of the mark and unjust enrichment. Kofsky is proceeding pro se while no defense counsel has entered an appearance. The case is also awaiting judicial assignment.

To read the complete article, click here.

The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) has been hit with a federal class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging anticompetitive practices that violate the Sherman Act. Filed by Georgia resident Linvel James Risner, the complaint accuses LSAC of conspiring with its 197-member law schools to fix prices for its mandatory law school applications.

According to the complaint, LSAC collects nearly $500 per applicant through a $215 subscription fee and a $45 per-report fee, generating over $30 million annually. Plaintiffs argue that LSAC provides minimal services – primarily transmitting basic application data – yet applicants have no alternative platform due to member schools’ exclusive reliance on LSAC’s system.

The suit also alleges that LSAC’s Board of Trustees is entirely composed of individuals employed by member law schools, enabling coordinated control over pricing and governance. LSAC is also being accused of using its nonprofit status to mask excessive executive compensation and amass over $250 million in net assets.

LSAC responded by denying the allegations, stating its commitment to expanding access to legal education to prospective students.

The proposed class includes all U.S. applicants who paid LSAC platform fees in the past four years.

To read the complete article, click here.

A Boston jury awarded $42.68 million to a Massachusetts couple who alleged Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder caused mesothelioma.
The plaintiff, Paul Lovell, alleged that using Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder for decades caused his 2021 mesothelioma diagnosis. The Suffolk County Superior Court jury awarded $24 million in past and future pain suffering and $2.6 million in medical expenses to plaintiff Paul Lovell, plus another $16 million to his wife, Kathryn Lovell, for past and future loss of consortium claims.

The trial is the second in Suffolk County Superior Court in the past two months against Johnson & Johnson arising our of a talc mesothelioma claim.

Johnson & Johnson’s Worldwide Vice President of Litigation promised to appeal, stating, “as with the vast majority of other plaintiff verdicts in the talc litigation, we fully expect the appellate court to reverse it.” He added, “this decision is predicated on ‘junk science’ that is refuted by decades of studies demonstrating Johnson’s Baby Powder is safe, does not contain asbestos, and does not cause cancer.”

You can read the complete Law.com article on the verdict here.

The New Jersey Judiciary has released its annual update to post-judgment interest rates, effective January 1, 2026, pursuant to Rule 4:42-11(a)(ii). These rates are critical for litigants and counsel assessing the financial impact of delayed payments following civil judgments.

2026 Interest Rates at a Glance

• Judgments ≤ $20,000: 4.5%
• Judgments > $20,000: 6.5% (includes 2.0% Special Civil Part adjustment under R. 4:42-11(a)(iii))

To read the Notice to the Bar, click here.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has confirmed it will not pursue formal revisions to the Biden-era rule banning most uses of chrysotile asbestos. The decision, disclosed in a July 8 filing with the Fifth Circuit, marks a departure from earlier proposals under the Trump administration to reevaluate the rule through public notice and comment rulemaking.

Instead, the EPA now intends to issue guidance to clarify workplace protection requirements, rather than reopen and reevaluate the rule itself. After the Biden administration published the final rule in 2024, it has drawn fire from both sides, industry groups and health and labor advocates.

The EPA defended the rule and filed a brief to pause litigation so that guidance can be implemented more quickly than formal rulemaking and help stakeholders comply with the existing regulation.

The lead case is Texas Chemistry Council et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency et al., No. 24-60193, pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
You can read the complete Law360 article here.

A Massachusetts jury has awarded $8 million to Janice Paluzzi, finding that Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder products substantially contributed to her mesothelioma. The verdict includes $5 million for past pain and suffering and $3 million for future pain and suffering.

Paluzzi, diagnosed in 2021, testified that she used Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower daily since childhood. The jury concluded that the products contained asbestos and that a design defect and negligent formulation were substantial contributing factors to her illness. However, Johnson & Johnson was not found liable for failure to warn or breach of implied warranty.

In its defense, Johnson & Johnson argued that Paluzzi’s mesothelioma was more likely caused by secondary asbestos exposure from her sons’ building maintenance work, not its talcum powder. The company also claimed Paluzzi primarily used Jean Nate talc, not J&J products, and emphasized that none of the tested talc bottles were hers. Additionally, J&J asserted that the plaintiff failed to quantify her lifetime asbestos exposure, making it impossible to prove their product was a substantial contributing factor.

You can read the complete Law360 article reporting on the verdict here.

A New York County jury awarded $117 million to William and Victoria Durbec in an asbestos exposure case involving the construction of the World Trade Center. The verdict, issued on May 22, 2025, is one of the largest asbestos-related awards for a single plaintiff in New York history.

Mr. Durbec developed mesothelioma after alleged occupational exposure to asbestos-containing materials during his work on the World Trade Center. The exposure reportedly stemmed from spray-on fireproofing applied to structural components such as steel columns, floor joists, and decking.

At trial, the only remaining defendant was Mario & DiBono Plastering Co. Inc., which allegedly applied the insulation under contract with the Port Authority. The jury found Mario & DiBono 80% liable, with 10% each assigned to the Port Authority and Tishman Realty & Construction Co.

Damages included:

• $40 million for past pain and suffering
• $38 million for future pain and suffering
• $20 million for past loss of consortium
• $19 million for future loss of consortium

Justice Mary V. Rosado adopted a post-trial briefing schedule set to conclude in September 2025.

You can read the complete Law.com article reporting on the verdict here.

On April 23, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order (EO) titled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” directing federal agencies to eliminate reliance on disparate-impact liability. In explaining its purpose, the order provides that disparate-impact theory – where statistical disparities among racial or gender groups may trigger liability absent discriminatory intent – undermines constitutional principles of equal protection and merit-based decision-making in various contexts.

The EO seeks to lay the foundation for preemption of state-law disparate-impact protections. More specifically, the EO directs federal agencies to deprioritize enforcement of statutes and regulations that rely on disparate-impact liability. It also instructs the Attorney General to repeal or revise agency regulations that incorporate disparate-impact standards as well as identify, amend, repeal, or challenge federal and state laws that do the same. Agencies are also instructed to promote equal employment access, including alternatives to college-degree requirements.

While the EO reshapes federal enforcement priorities, it does not change existing federal law or eliminate disparate-impact liability under Title VII, the ADA, ADEA, or state anti-discrimination statutes. Private plaintiffs can still pursue disparate-impact claims, and state regulators may continue enforcement. Employers should maintain compliance with applicable laws and continue conducting adverse analyses – particularly in hiring, layoffs, and algorithmic decision-making.

Legal counsel should guide these reviews to ensure strategic enlightenment with ongoing regulatory guidance.

You can read the complete article here.