1. 11/07 Court of Appeals Limits Privity Exception to Construction Warranty
   
2. 10/07 SMB Attorney Obtains $5.82 Million Verdict
   
3. 10/07 U.S. Litigants Still Amenable to English Anti-Suit Injunction
   

Court of Appeals Limits Privity Exception to Construction Warranty

The Arizona Court of Appeals’ November 6, 2007 decision in The Lofts at Fillmore Condominium Association v. Reliance Commercial Construction, Inc. clarifies that Supreme Court case law on the implied warranty of habitability and workmanlike construction has not abolished the implied warranty’s privity requirement. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals determined that while a purchaser’s successors in interest could sue on the implied warranty, the relaxed privity requirement did not extend to allow a plaintiff to sue a homebuilder who was not in contractual privity with the original homebuyer. Rather, the cause of action extended only to the original vendor of the home.

SMB Attorney Obtains $5.82 Million Verdict

On October 25, 2007, the jury in the Coconino County Superior Court case of Warren v. Parfitt returned a verdict of $6 million against Walgreens for pharmaceutical liability for the wrongful death of Eric Warren in December of 2002, who died of lethal combined drug toxicity after taking his prescription medication. Tom Shorall, Jr., a senior partner with the law firm of Shorall McGoldrick Brinkmann represented Mr. Warren’s family in the wrongful death lawsuit. The jury reduced its $6 million award to $5.82 million based upon the contributing negligence of other parties.

U.S. Litigants Still Amenable to English Anti-Suit Injunctions

Mr. Justice David Steel of the Commercial Court, sitting in London, made it plain by his decision in General Motors Corporation v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance plc on October 2, 2007, that English courts would still issue anti-suit injunctions restraining litigants from filing lawsuits in the United States in breach of exclusive jurisdiction agreements. Judge Steel concluded that an earlier consent order in the same case constituted an agreement on exclusive jurisdiction. Meanwhile the European Court of Justice is still determining whether the EU Jurisdiction Regulation allows English courts to issue anti-suit injunctions against proceedings in other European Union countries that violate arbitration agreements, after the House of Lords had referred the matter of West Tankers Inc. v. RAS Rivnione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA to the European court.