<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Tort and Catastrophic Loss &#8211; FMGBlogLine</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/category/business-litigation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine</link>
	<description>Freeman Mathis &#38; Gary Law Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2021 20:53:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.6</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Georgia Supreme Court holds “Gang Statute” does not apply to landlord</title>
		<link>https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/business-litigation/georgia-supreme-court-holds-gang-statute-does-not-apply-to-landlord/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[fmg-admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2021 20:53:29 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Tort and Catastrophic Loss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort and Catastrophic Loss - GA]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/?p=12365</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[By: Wes Jackson On June 21, 2021, the Georgia Supreme Court held that a statutory cause of action designed to provide “treble damages” to victims of gang violence does not apply to the owner or occupier of the property where the violence occurred if the owner or occupier did not participate in the criminal activity. [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Jersey Supreme Court Throws Support behind Ongoing Storm Rule (with Limited Exceptions)</title>
		<link>https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/business-litigation/new-jersey-supreme-court-throws-support-behind-ongoing-storm-rule-with-limited-exceptions/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[fmg-admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2021 16:55:53 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Hospitality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort and Catastrophic Loss]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/?p=12333</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[By: Josh Ferguson and Michelle Yee The New Jersey Supreme Court has re-affirmed Defendants&#8217; ability to use the Ongoing Storm Rule to support the defense of a snow/ice slip and fall claim. In Pareja v. Princeton International Properties, 463 N.J. Super. 231, 235 (App. Div. 2020), Plaintiff was walking to work in the early morning [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Certiorari in the Georgia Supreme Court by the Numbers</title>
		<link>https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/business-litigation/tort-and-catastrophic-loss-ga/certiorari-in-the-georgia-supreme-court-by-the-numbers/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[fmg-admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2021 20:12:54 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Appellate Advocacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort and Catastrophic Loss - GA]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/?p=12297</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[By: Jacob Daly The Georgia Court of Appeals has just ruled against your client, and so you’re considering whether you should file a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Georgia Supreme Court.&#160;Your client wants to know the likelihood of your petition being granted and, if it is granted, what the possible outcomes are [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Automobile Dealer Protection under the Connecticut Dealer Plate Statute, C.G.S. §14-60, Upheld</title>
		<link>https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/business-litigation/automobile-dealer-protection-under-the-connecticut-dealer-plate-statute-c-g-s-%c2%a714-60-upheld/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[fmg-admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2021 20:14:05 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Tort and Catastrophic Loss]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/?p=12262</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[By: Edward Storck In Kyle McCall v. Gina Sopneski, et al, 202 Conn. App. 616 (2021), the appellant, Kyle McCall, sought review of the trial court’s decision granting the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by appellee, Reynold’s Garage &#38; Marine, Inc. on the grounds that Reynold’s Garage was immune from suit pursuant to the dealer [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Georgia Federal Court Among the First to Restrict Applicability of Georgia COVID Emergency Orders Extending Statutes of Limitations</title>
		<link>https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/business-litigation/tort-and-catastrophic-loss-ga/georgia-federal-court-among-the-first-to-restrict-applicability-of-georgia-covid-emergency-orders-extending-statutes-of-limitations/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[fmg-admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2021 18:13:45 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Tort and Catastrophic Loss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort and Catastrophic Loss - GA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[COVID-19]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emergency Orders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Georgia]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/?p=12251</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[By: Wayne Melnick and Carlos Fernandez The COVID-19 pandemic slowed the roll of most, if not all, cases. Now that the brakes are being slowly eased-off, questions are arising about the Georgia Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders that extended the statute of limitations deadlines. A new case from the Middle District of Georgia interpreted the Emergency [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Georgia Legislature Extends COVID Liability Immunity While Courts Consider the Statute&#8217;s Protections</title>
		<link>https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/business-litigation/georgia-legislature-extends-covid-liability-immunity-while-courts-consider-the-statutes-protections/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[fmg-admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2021 16:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Tort and Catastrophic Loss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[COVID]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/?p=12248</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[By: Sharon Horne The COVID-19 Pandemic Business Safety Act, codified at O.C.G.A. §§ 51-16-1 to -5, went into effect on August 5, 2020, to provide immunity to healthcare facilities and providers, other businesses, and individuals from “COVID-19 liability claims” unless their actions showed gross negligence, willful and wanton misconduct, reckless infliction of harm, or intentional [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Superior Court Erodes Pennsylvania’s Fair Share Act</title>
		<link>https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/business-litigation/superior-court-erodes-pennsylvanias-fair-share-act/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[fmg-admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2021 15:30:46 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Tort and Catastrophic Loss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fair Share Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/?p=12174</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[By: Erin Lamb In 2011, Pennsylvania enacted the “Fair Share Act,” Senate Bill 1131. The bill substantially limited the applicability of joint and several liability in civil cases. There is no question that it was the goal of the legislature and then-Gov. Corbett for the bill to do exactly that. As enacted and as applied [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Determining Ownership In Premises Liability Cases</title>
		<link>https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/commercial-and-complex-litigation/determining-ownership-in-premises-liability-cases/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[fmg-admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2021 14:15:44 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation/Directors & Officers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort and Catastrophic Loss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[premises liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/?p=12169</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[By: Brian Goldberg There are fewer more important preliminary inquiries in a premises liability case than determining who owns the underlying land where a plaintiff was injured. Most of the time this is a simple inquiry. But sometimes disagreements may occur concerning who the true owner of the land where the plaintiff was injured. For [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court of Georgia Decision Sides With Amicus Arguments Authored by FMG Attorneys Regarding Duties of Employer for Criminal Conduct of Employees</title>
		<link>https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/business-litigation/supreme-court-of-georgia-decision-sides-with-amicus-arguments-authored-by-fmg-attorneys-regarding-duties-of-employer-for-criminal-conduct-of-employees/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[fmg-admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 May 2021 19:44:41 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Tort and Catastrophic Loss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort and Catastrophic Loss - GA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GDLA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Georgia]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/?p=12185</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[By: Phil Savrin and Alexia Roney In an appeal before the Supreme Court of Georgia involving two multi-million dollar judgments, the Georgia Defense Lawyers Association tapped FMG Attorneys Phil Savrin and Alexia Roney to author an amicus brief on the scope of foreseeability for injuries arising from the criminal conduct of an off-duty employee and [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>One Man’s Trash: Georgia Court of Appeals Weighs in on Respondeat Superior Following Homeowner’s Altercation with Garbage Employee in Advanced Disposal Servs. Atlanta v. Marczak</title>
		<link>https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/business-litigation/one-mans-trash-georgia-court-of-appeals-weighs-in-on-respondeat-superior-following-homeowners-altercation-with-garbage-employee-in-advanced-disposal-servs-atlanta-v-marczak/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[fmg-admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2021 14:07:13 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Tort and Catastrophic Loss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort and Catastrophic Loss - GA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Garbage Truck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Georgia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waste Removal]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.fmglaw.com/FMGBlogLine/?p=12144</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[By: Steven Grunberg Do you ever feel like your dedication to your job is questioned? For one employee of a garbage and recycling disposal company there is little doubt surrounding the answer to this question. In March 2018, Lorenzo Bucknor was driving an Advanced Disposal Services Atlanta, LLC (“ADS”) recycling truck when he arrived at [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
