Question of Fact as to whether Misuse of Prescription Medication is Foreseeable

In a significant ruling, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision, which reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The case involved a multi-vehicle accident on Interstate 10, resulting in the prescription and subsequent misuse of pain medication that led to acute liver failure and ultimately the death of Marcus D. Smith. Smith’s widow filed a wrongful death suit, alleging that the misuse of the prescription pain medication was a foreseeable result of injuries sustained in the accident. The trial court disagreed, entering summary judgment on those claims in favor of the defendants. The Court of Appeals and later the Supreme Court found that there was a question of fact as to whether a reasonable juror would conclude that the misuse was foreseeable. The Court’s decision affirms the foreseeability of a particular injury and the presence of an intervening cause as questions for the finder of fact, marking a pivotal development in the legal landscape surrounding car accident-related injuries and their unforeseen consequences. This ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for similar cases in the future. Read more>>>CO174703.pdf (ms.gov)

Court Affirms Decision to Correct Scrivener’s Error in Irrevocable Trust, Conforming to Settlor’s Intent

In a landmark ruling, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court to reform an irrevocable trust in order to correct an alleged scrivener’s error. The petition to reform the remainder distribution clause was granted based on clear and convincing evidence of the settlor’s original intent at the time of creating the trust. Finding the petitioners submitted clear and convincing evidence of the settlors intent, the appellate court found the Chancellor did not abuse his discretion in allowing the reformation.  This decision is the first to analyze Miss. Code Ann. §91-8-415, and marks a significant development in trust law. Read more >>>CO174401.pdf (ms.gov)

Recent Shift in DOJ Enforcement Trends for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP)

 trends indicate a notable shift in the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ) focus on False Claims Act (FCA) enforcement actions related to PPP applicants’ technical compliance with complex PPP rules and regulations. This represents a departure from the DOJ’s prior emphasis on combatting more evident instances of alleged fraud within the PPP. At the 2024 Qui Tam Conference, the DOJ revealed that it had recovered $2.7 billion through a record 543 FCA settlements and judgments in fiscal year 2023, with approximately half of these involving PPP loans, resulting in over $48.3 million in recoveries. Assistant US attorneys emphasized that PPP enforcement actions remain a significant priority, with ongoing expectations for continued investigations into alleged PPP fraud. Read more>>> Paycheck Protection Program Enforcement Likely to Continue with Focus on More Complex Cases – Lexology

US District Court Rules in Favor of Plaintiffs in Insurance Coverage Case Against Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company

In a significant ruling, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington has sided with Plaintiffs Benny and Guangying Cheung in their insurance coverage dispute against Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company. The case centered on whether the damage to the Plaintiffs’ property was caused by theft or vandalism, as neither term was defined in the policy. The Court’s decision, which followed the Plaintiffs’ claim for coverage after their property was damaged and items were stolen, highlighted the pivotal role of precise policy language interpretation in insurance coverage cases. Ultimately, the Court held that the damage resulted from theft, not vandalism, and ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs, emphasizing the crucial importance of clarity in policy language. Read more>>>Court Differentiates Vandalism from Theft in First Party Insurance Policy – Lexology