The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal on a case involving text messaging privacy.  Whether or not employees have a right to privacy when texting on employer-owned devices is an issue of keen interest to many employers and employees alike.  But this case may not have a sweeping application as the matter pertains to a city and its employee rather than the private sector.  Simply, the case involves privacy under the fourth amendment protections, which differ between private and government employees.  In his Technology and Marketing Law blog, Eric Goldman offers a good round-up of what the law firms are saying about the case as well as some insights as to why the Supreme Court has agreed to consider the case.  While speculations may persist until the Supreme Court renders its decision, the consensus on operating procedures suggests employers should maintain an electronic communications policy (and follow it) and  employees should avoid private communications on company time or equipment.

Twitter is the top word of 2009, beating out Obama, H1N1 and stimulus.  Other tech terms and phrases making the top list  include 2.0 and cloud computing.    Of course Twitter can’t be that popular without creating an opportunity for litigation.   Some Twitter scenarios:

Click to read more ...

Mass. General is facing a possible class action lawsuit because one of its employees took private patient information home for the weekend and left it on the train.

The California Department of Public Health assessed an administrative penalty of $250,000 on Kaiser Foundation Hospital in Bellflower for allowing employees and physicians unauthorized access to a patient’s medical records. The penalty was assessed under a new medical privacy provision of California’s Health and Safety Code.

Click to read more ...

The Media Law Resource Center (MLRC) has a new blog tracking legal actions against bloggers. It’s searchable by a variety of categories. So if you’re looking for claim examples involving blogs, check it out. In the damages category, the MLRC currently tracks 17 cases totaling over $30 Million in damages awarded. Of the cases shown, the highest amount awarded by a jury involved a suit for libel over a site post about the plaintiff’s business practices. The case was settled confidentially immediately before the jury rendered its verdict of $2.5 Million in compensatory damages plus $10 Million in punitive damages. The site in question was turned over to the plaintiff.

The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled that an insurer cannot deny coverage because notice of a claim is not provided “as soon as practicable” if the late notice does not prejudice the insurer. This is a reversal of an earlier ruling made by the Texas 5^th district appellate court. While this ruling may seem advantageous for insureds, late reporting of claims is still problematic. Here’s a basic overview of how claims are analyzed:

Click to read more ...

By applying an early state statute instead of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision regarding what constitutes actual malice, the 1^st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston is allowing a libel lawsuit brought by a terminated employee against his employer to proceed. Since the content in question is an email that no one disputes is true, the ruling is creating a stir regarding the impact on the First Amendment.

Click to read more ...

A breach of contract exclusion in the errors and omissions policy purchased by an insurance agent that held binding authority for a property insurer was applied recently to bar the agent from receiving any E&O coverage when it was sued for having, apparently negligently rather than purposefully, issued two property policies that were beyond the scope of its binding authority.

Click to read more ...