The Jere Beasley Report November 2025

CAPITOL OBSERVATIONS

Beasley Allen – 45 Years Later

It’s known nationwide that Beasley Allen is a litigation law firm solely representing plaintiffs in civil litigation.  From our beginning in 1979, Beasley Allen lawyers have only represented victims of wrongdoing. That will never change.  The firm currently has 103 lawyers and 298 support staff. We have come a long way since I opened the firm as a sole practitioner in a small office on Hull Street in the Capitol City. 

The firm only represents individuals, companies, and governmental entities that have suffered damages due to the wrongdoing of another party. Our lawyers do not handle any defense work – neither civil nor criminal – and there are no exceptions. The only time we represent a company from Corporate America is when it is the victim of wrongdoing and is a plaintiff in civil litigation. This has been our policy since the firm’s establishment. 

 Beasley Allen currently has offices in Montgomery, Mobile, and Atlanta. There are also lawyers in the firm who live in and work from other states. We have working relationships with lawyers and law firms all over the country. Much of our caseload comes from referring lawyers. That is beneficial to all, and especially for the clients represented. 

We are honored and humbled that our firm has been consistently recognized as one of the leading law firms, representing only claimants involved in civil litigation in the country. Much of this litigation is complex, complicated and very difficult. Being trial lawyers representing only victims of wrongdoing is what we do, and it’s a privilege for us to do so. We do things the right way and for the right reason. Our firm and our clients have been truly blessed. 

TALC LITIGATION

Update On Talc Litigation

Beasley Allen lawyers have begun an aggressive trial schedule in the talc litigation and will be presenting evidence and arguments against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) to juries across the country.  In California, a multi-plaintiff trial involving a Beasley Allen plaintiff, Kent, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, will begin on November 3, 2025, with Andy Birchfield serving as lead trial counsel.  The first New Jersey state court talc trial, Carl v. Johnson & Johnson, is scheduled to begin on March 3, 2026.  On January 20, 2026, another Beasley Allen case – Henry v. Johnson & Johnson – will begin trial in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. Balderrama is set to start on April 13, 2026, in New Jersey State Court.

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey announced on October 1, 2025, despite the federal government shutdown, that it would continue judicial operations without interruption.  The final pretrial conference for the first MDL bellwether trial remains scheduled to take place on November 5, 2025.  When that trial moves forward in early 2026, Andy Birchfield and Leigh O’Dell will serve as lead trial counsel, along with Michelle A. Parfitt of Ashcraft & Gerel and Christopher Tisi of Levin Papantonio.

Two Beasley Allen cases have also been set for trial in Florida state courts later in 2026, and we anticipate additional 2026 trial dates in Georgia as well. We will continue to push this litigation to a successful conclusion for all of the victims of J&J’s massive wrongdoing. 

Meanwhile, in the Imerys/Cyprus bankruptcy, the parties have filed Amended Plan documents, and a confirmation hearing is scheduled for February 2026.

Avon Trust Sues Insurers Over $225 Million Talc Claims

A trust formed under Avon’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy has filed suit against nearly 30 insurance companies in Delaware state court, seeking coverage for over $225 million in talc-related injury claims. The trust alleges that insurers—including Travelers and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co.—have failed or refused to reimburse Avon’s defense and liability costs. They say this is despite policies that should cover such claims.

The complaint alleges that the talc lawsuits stem from bodily injuries occurring during policy periods, triggering coverage obligations. Avon filed for bankruptcy in August 2024 amid 386 lawsuits and $1.3 billion in debt. The Avon reorganization plan, approved in September 2025, transferred insurance rights to the trust to fund claimant payouts.

Judge Craig Goldblatt approved the plan after minor revisions, affirming that insurers’ rights would remain intact. Now, the trust seeks a declaratory judgment confirming the insurers’ responsibility and requests a jury trial to resolve any disputes.

The trust is represented by Marla R. Eskin and Katherine L. Hemming of Campbell & Levine LLC and Kami E. Quinn, Sonia Williams Murphy and Ethan H. Kaminsky of Gilbert LLP.

The state court case is The Avon Liquidation Trust v. Accredited Insurance (Europe) Ltd. et al., case number n25c-10-064, in the Superior Court for the State of Delaware.

The underlying bankruptcy is In re: AIO Inc. et al., case number 1:24-bk-11836, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

Source: Law360

Jury Awards $966 Million In Talc Cancer Case

A Los Angeles jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson (J&J) to pay $966 million to the family of Mae Moore, an 88-year-old California woman who died from mesothelioma in 2021. The jury awarded $16 million in compensatory damages and $950 million in punitive damages. The jury found J&J to be liable for exposing the victim to asbestos through its talc-based baby powder products.

This case is part of the broader legal battle discussed above concerning more than 67,000 lawsuits involving J&J’s talc products that cause cancer, primarily ovarian cancer. The Moore case involved Mesothelioma. Mesothelioma-related claims represent a smaller subset, but those cases have led to several significant verdicts in recent months. 

The Moore verdict underscores the mounting pressure on J&J to resolve the growing wave of talc-related litigation. The public, as well as J&J shareholders, is demanding that J&J do what it should have done long ago, and that is to settle this ongoing litigation. 

Beasley Allen Talc Litigation Team

As is quite evident, the ongoing battle with Johnson & Johnson continues. Beasley Allen has battled J&J on every front. While J&J’s fraudulent bankruptcy attempts delayed justice for thousands of victims, Beasley Allen did not back down. We will continue to fight this battle in the right way and for the right reason to the very end. I continue to believe justice will ultimately be served for the thousands of J&J victims and their families.

Beasley Allen lawyers Leigh O’Dell and Ted Meadows head our Talc Ovarian Cancer Litigation Team. From the beginning, the litigation team has been directly involved in all phases of the talc litigation. Andy Birchfield, who heads up our Mass Torts Section, has been out front in all aspects of this litigation. Andy actually became J&J’s target. He has been attacked by this huge, powerful company constantly. J&J has tried very hard to intimidate Andy and the firm, but their efforts have not worked and will not work in the future.  

This has been a tough battle, but it is a critically important and necessary one, and our lawyers do not intend to back down. Beasley Allen will continue its battle with J&J, and now it will be back in the courts. 

The following Beasley Allen lawyers are members of the Talc Litigation Team:

Leigh O’Dell, Ted Meadows, Kelli Alfreds, Ryan Beattie, Beau Darley, David Dearing, Liz Achtemeier, Jennifer Emmel, James Lampkin, Caty O’Quinn, Cristina Rodriguez, Brittany Scott, and Matt Teague.

CAMP LEJEUNE LITIGATION

Justice Delayed: DOJ’s Government Shutdown Strategy Rejected, But Camp Lejeune Victims Still Wait

In a positive development for Camp Lejeune litigation, a federal court recently denied the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) attempt to pause proceedings – including settlement discussions – during the government shutdown. The DOJ had sought a stay, citing furloughed attorneys and statutory restrictions on their ability to work—even voluntarily. But the court rejected the motion, recognizing that further delay would cause irreparable harm to thousands of victims seeking justice under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA).

U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. ordered DOJ attorneys to resume litigation activities, emphasizing that many plaintiffs are elderly or terminally ill and cannot afford to wait. The court’s decision reaffirmed the urgency of the litigation and the statutory promise of swift resolution for those harmed by decades of toxic water exposure at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune.

However, while DOJ attorneys were ordered back to work, the Camp Lejeune Claims Unit (CLCU) within the Department of the Navy remained furloughed during the shutdown. This meant that administrative claims were not being reviewed. As a result, no disbursements were made, even for those who had already received settlement offers. The Treasury Judgment Fund, which processes payments, was also suspended, leaving thousands of claimants in limbo.

The CLJA was intended to provide expedited relief.  But the litigation, global resolution, and the administrative claims process—remain bogged down in delays, exacerbated by the DOJ’s litigation posture and apparent disregard for the Camp Lejeune Justice Act’s core purpose. While the court has pushed back in this instance, the broader promise of timely justice remains unfulfilled for thousands still waiting.

Beasley Allen lawyers will continue to push for a prompt resolution of claims for the clients we represent. Currently, the firm has over 7,300 clients, and we are putting their interests first on our priority list. 

SOCIAL MEDIA LITIGATION

Social Media Litigation Update

Beasley Allen represents individuals suing the entities responsible for the creation and dissemination to the public of the Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube products without adequate protections or warnings This failure has caused thousands of adolescents to experience frequent periods of suicidal ideation, engage in various forms of self-harm, develop eating disorders, suffer from severe depression and anxiety, among other harms that can cause or contribute to additional diseases. There have actually been a large number of suicides by youngsters as a result of this massive wrongdoing. 

The Social Media Addiction/Personal Injury Product Liability Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), presided over by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers, recently received defendants’ summary judgment briefing on plaintiffs’ public nuisance claims. Plaintiff school districts will submit robust opposition to the defendants’ motions in the coming weeks. 

On September 23, 2025, the Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings (JCCP), presided over by Judge Carolyn Kuhl of the Los Angeles Superior Court, ruled that plaintiffs’ expert testimony concerning the injuries inflicted by the design and operation of defendants’ platforms can be appropriately presented for jury consideration. The defendants first attempted to exclude this evidence on the grounds that it would violate Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, an immunity statute relied upon by social media companies attempting to shield the companies against liability for third-party content posted on their platforms. Judge Kuhl ordered that Section 230 will not afford defendants an avenue of escape for the consequences of their actions, provided plaintiffs’ evidence focuses on the design of the platforms, not content found on the platforms. 

Defendants further sought the exclusion of plaintiffs’ expert testimony under the Sargon standard, which is the California state equivalent of the federal Daubert admissibility standard. Judge Kuhl determined that 10 of the plaintiffs’ 11 experts met their Sargon obligation. This was a most important outcome in the case. There was also a very important ruling relating to three key individuals who will be required to testify at the January trial. We will write separately on that development below. 

Judge Kuhl, in an extremely important ruling, ordered Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Instagram head Adam Mosseri, and Snap CEO Evan Spiegel to testify in the January bellwether trial. The judge emphasized in her ruling that CEO testimony is uniquely relevant due to their potential knowledge of platform design choices and risks. Plaintiffs contend that the features were intentionally made addictive for minors without adequate warnings.

Judge Kuhl stated that any lack of knowledge by the executives could itself be relevant to the case, particularly regarding whether companies knew or should have known about the risks and acted differently.

Judge Kuhl declined at this juncture to sanction Meta over the destruction of user interaction data, saying she may revisit that issue at a later time. 

The plaintiffs are represented by Beasley Allen lawyers Joseph G. VanZandt and Davis Vaughn along with Rachel Lanier of The Lanier Law Firm PC, Mariana A. McConnell, Paul R. Kiesel and Cherisse H. Cleofe of Kiesel Law LLP, and Rahul Ravipudi, Brian J. Panish, Ian Samson and Jesse Creed of Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP.

Beasley Allen is honored to represent victims of the tech giants’ harmful product designs.

Meta Lawyers Advised Altering Teen Harm Research To Limit Its Legal Risk

A Washington, D.C. judge has ruled that Meta Platforms Inc. cannot shield internal documents under attorney-client privilege in a lawsuit over teen mental health harms. Judge Yvonne Williams of the D.C. Superior Court found that Meta’s lawyers advised employees to alter or suppress internal research to reduce the company’s legal exposure—actions that fall under the crime-fraud exception to privilege.

Judge Williams stated that Meta’s counsel instructed researchers to “remove,” “block,” “button up,” “limit,” and “update” findings related to teen mental health. The advice came amid growing legal threats, including the major multidistrict litigation in California involving dozens of state attorneys general and hundreds of private lawsuits over social media addiction.

Pursuant to the court order, Meta must turn over four documents dated between November 2022 and July 2023 within seven days. The company disputes the ruling, claiming the legal discussions were routine and that no research was deleted or destroyed. That certainly doesn’t appear to be the case.

The D.C. Attorney General’s case, filed under the district’s consumer protection laws, is separate from the California litigation. But it will be influenced by this ruling. Plaintiffs in the California case have already submitted the decision to that court.

The case is District of Columbia v. Meta Platforms Inc., D.C. Super. Ct., No. 2023 CAB 006550, 10/23/25.

Source: Bloomberg Law

Plaintiffs Seek Sanctions Against Meta For Alleged Destruction Of Key Social Media Usage Data

Personal injury plaintiffs in the California case referred to above have asked a state judge to sanction Meta Platforms Inc. for destroying critical “taps” data—time-stamped records of user interactions like taps, scrolls, and swipes on Facebook and Instagram. The plaintiffs contend that the data is considered essential for measuring the intensity and frequency of social media use, especially in litigation, claiming that Meta’s platforms harm young users’ mental health.

In a redacted motion, filed on September 25, plaintiffs contended that Meta failed to preserve this data despite legal obligations to do so dating back to 2022. Meta later admitted that Facebook taps data prior to April, and Instagram taps data prior to June, no longer exists for key plaintiffs. This loss leaves plaintiffs with unverifiable summaries instead of objective usage records.

Meta’s data engineering director has testified that taps data underpins the company’s usage metrics and is the most accurate measure of time spent on its platforms. Plaintiffs say that Meta never disclosed the existence of this data until a June deposition and unilaterally allowed it to be deleted.

Meta contends the data wasn’t relevant, wasn’t requested, and would be burdensome to preserve. Plaintiffs correctly say those claims are baseless. The plaintiffs are now seeking sanctions, including barring Meta from introducing certain testimony, issuing an adverse inference jury instruction, and preventing Meta from disputing plaintiffs’ usage claims.

Parallel federal litigation is also underway, with similar claims from parents, school districts, and state Attorneys General. Discovery disputes continue, including recent allegations that TikTok withheld information about its relationship with influencer Eugenia Cooney, which TikTok says was requested too late.

The plaintiffs are represented in the California case by Beasley Allen lawyers Joseph G. VanZandt and Davis Vaughn, along with Mariana A. McConnell, Paul R. Kiesel and Cherisse H. Cleofe of Kiesel Law LLP, Rachel Lanier of The Lanier Law Firm PC, and Rahul Ravipudi, Brian J. Panish and Jesse Creed of Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP.

The state case is Social Media Cases, case number JCCP5255, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

The federal MDL is In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, case number 4:22-md-03047, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Source: Law360

Key Claims Survive Lawsuit Against Apple, Google, And Meta Over Social Casino Apps

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila has partially dismissed a multidistrict lawsuit accusing Apple, Google, and Meta of facilitating illegal “social casino games” through their platforms. While the judge dismissed several claims—including racketeering, unjust enrichment, and some gambling loss recovery allegations—he allowed other claims to proceed, particularly those involving payment processing.

The tech giants contend that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields them from liability, claiming they merely host third-party apps. Judge Davila disagreed, stating that payment processing is a business transaction, not a publishing activity, and therefore it’s not protected under Section 230.

Judge Davila also dismissed consumer protection claims under California law, noting the statute doesn’t specifically address gambling. However, similar claims under other states’ laws—including Kentucky, Montana, and Arkansas—were allowed to move forward.

The plaintiffs allege that while players can’t cash out winnings, the games still qualify as gambling under state laws because users pay for chances to win more playtime or virtual coins. The companies maintain that any legal issues lie with the game developers, not the platforms.

Judge Davila reaffirmed his earlier stance from 2022 that payment processing claims are not barred by Section 230. He rejected renewed arguments based on shifting legal precedent. Judge Davila gave plaintiffs 21 days to decide whether to amend their complaint or proceed with the surviving claims. He certified the ruling for immediate appeal, citing unresolved legal questions around the scope of Section 230.

The consumers are represented by Rafey S. Balabanian, Todd Logan and Brandt Silver-Korn of Edelson PC.

The cases are In Re: Apple Inc. App Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation, case number 5:21-md-02985; In Re: Facebook Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation, case number 5:21-cv-02777; In Re: Google Play Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation, case number 5:21-md-03001, and Boorn v. Facebook Inc., case number 5:21-cv-02818, all in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Source: Law360

The Beasley Allen Social Media Litigation Team

Joseph VanZandt, who leads our firm’s Social Media Personal Injury Litigation Team, is co-lead counsel for the Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding (JCCP) for the plaintiffs in California State Court. Joseph is also a member of the Plaintiffs Steering Committee in the MDL, helping lead the federal social media multidistrict litigation. Lawyers on the Beasley Allen Social Media Litigation Team are set out below.

Social Media Litigation Team

Joseph VanZandt (who heads the team) Jennifer Emmel, Suzanne Clark, Clinton Richardson, Sydney Everett, Davis Vaughn, Soo Seok Yang, James Lampkin, Seth Harding and Slade Methvin. Andy Birchfield, who heads our Mass Torts Section, also works with the team. He can be reached at 800-898-2034 or by email at [email protected].

THE GAMING LITIGATION

An Update On Gaming Litigation

Gaming companies are well aware that their platforms attract millions of children and teens—but predators have begun exploiting this reality. These individuals often disguise themselves as minors, use chat features to manipulate young users, and lure them into inappropriate online and even in-person encounters.

Parents across the United States are now pursuing legal action against Roblox, alleging that the gaming platform failed to protect minors from sexual exploitation and predatory grooming. The lawsuits assert multiple product liability claims. Roblox neglected to take basic steps to safeguard young users, and there lies the problem. Some complaints also name Discord, a free communication platform, as a co-defendant, claiming it further enabled contact between predators and victims.

In late September, a petition was filed requesting that the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) consolidate at least 31 related lawsuits in the Northern District of California. These cases are expected to test the boundaries of online platform accountability. Roblox and other defendants will attempt to invoke Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and First Amendment protections to unjustly argue they are not liable for user behavior.

Beasley Allen lawyers are committed to holding gaming companies accountable for the harm caused by predatory practices and the broader issue of video game addiction.

Federal Consolidation Sought For Video Game Addiction Lawsuits:

A motion has been filed with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) seeking to consolidate federal lawsuits related to video game addiction. The proposed consolidation would centralize claims against the developers of Fortnite (Epic Games), Minecraft (Microsoft/Mojang), and Roblox (Roblox Corporation) into a single multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 

The key allegations by plaintiffs contend that these video games are intentionally designed to foster addictive behaviors, particularly those in children and teenagers. The tactics by defendants include: 

• use of loot boxes with randomized rewards, 

• extended play requirements for rare item drops, 

• pay-to-win upgrades and cosmetic purchases, and 

• behavioral tracking and algorithmic targeting for ads and in-game purchases.

Plaintiffs’ motion emphasizes a narrower scope than a previously rejected industry-wide MDL request in June 2024, which involved over two dozen companies. By focusing on three “gateway” games and four manufacturers, the plaintiffs now aim to streamline discovery and avoid conflicting rulings. Seventeen related actions are currently pending across seven federal districts. 

If plaintiffs’ motion is granted, the MDL would allow for coordinated pretrial proceedings and the use of bellwether trials to gauge jury responses. Individual plaintiffs would still need to prove causation specific to their claims. Further, unresolved cases may return to their original jurisdictions for trial. 

MOTOR VEHICLE AND TRUCKING LITIGATION

Seat Back Failures Have Devastating Consequences

Have you ever thought about the seat back in your vehicle being a safety feature? People tend to only think of seat belts and airbags as safety devices in vehicles that are intended to protect an occupant in a crash. However, in a rear-end collision, the seat back is actually the primary form of restraint and protection. 

When the seat back fails, it can have devastating consequences for the occupant. If a seat back fails, it typically collapses rearward, lying flat. When this occurs, the occupant moves towards the rear of the vehicle and out from the engaged seat belt. Thus, the occupant becomes totally unrestrained. 

Often, an occupant will sustain a severe injury by contacting structures located behind the occupant or flexing over the seat back or head rest, resulting in catastrophic injuries, including, but not limited to, spinal cord injuries, traumatic brain injuries, head injuries, and even death due to the severity of the injuries. 

The fact that your seat back is your primary form of restraint in a rear-end collision is another reason why you should not recline your seat, for instance, to take a nap as a passenger in a vehicle. In doing so, you are exposing yourself to being unrestrained in a rear-end crash by negating the ability of the seat back and seat belt to restrain you. 

FMVSS 207 is the government standard for seat back strength. This test, however, is a static test that pulls on the seat back to test its strength. There is no dynamic crash test required to test the seat back strength of a vehicle. Meaning, there is no test that requires vehicle manufacturers to crash test a vehicle in a rear-end collision to evaluate the design and strength of their seats and the seat back. Therefore, most vehicles are sold without their seat backs being evaluated for proper occupant protection in rear impact crashes. 

A vehicle whose seat back has collapsed or deformed significantly rearward should be apparent due to its reclined position following the crash. Also, occupants are often found at rest following the crash towards the rear of the vehicle. Beasley Allen lawyers have successfully litigated and resolved cases against manufacturers involving defective seat backs that have collapsed or deformed significantly rearward in a crash, resulting in catastrophic and fatal injuries. 

Nissan Reaches Tentative Settlement Over Faulty Braking System Claims

Nissan North America Inc. and a group of drivers have reached a settlement in principle to resolve multistate litigation alleging that certain Nissan vehicles had defective automatic braking systems that could unexpectedly trigger, creating dangerous driving conditions. Beasley Allen lawyers Dee Miles, Clay Barnett, Mitch Williams, Dylan Martin, and Trent Mann, along with lawyers from other firms listed below, represent the plaintiffs in the litigation. 

The proposed settlement was reported to U.S. District Judge William Campbell in Tennessee federal court. It comes nearly a year after the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a class certification involving drivers of 2017–2021 Nissan Rogue, Altima, and Kicks models.

Drivers claimed that radar sensors in the vehicles falsely detected obstacles, causing the brakes to activate without reason. They alleged Nissan was aware of the defect but failed to inform consumers.

In 2023, a Tennessee judge certified 10 state classes of affected drivers across California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. However, in November 2024, the Sixth Circuit reversed that decision, citing the lower court’s failure to consider software updates that may have resolved the issue for some vehicles.

The appellate panel emphasized that differences in state laws and the impact of Nissan’s software fixes made it difficult to determine defectiveness on a class-wide basis. Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton noted that unless all class members shared a common defect experience, the case could not proceed under Rule 23’s commonality requirement.

While the settlement terms are confidential, this development could bring closure to a complex legal battle that questioned both the safety of Nissan’s technology and the standards for class action certification. 

The class is represented by lawyers from Beasley Allen, DiCello Levitt, Stranch Jennings & Garvey PLLC, Bailey & Glasser LLP and Smith Krivoshey PC.

The case is In Re: Nissan North America Inc. Litigation, case number 3:19-cv-00843, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

Source: Law360

U.S. Supreme Court To Resolve Circuit Split On Whether Plaintiffs Can Bring Claims Against Freight Brokers For Negligently Selecting Unsafe Motor Carriers

We discussed in a previous issue of this Report that freight brokers may bear responsibility when unsafe trucking companies cause catastrophic wrecks on Alabama highways. After all, brokers are the ones who choose the unsafe carriers to haul goods throughout the country.  Brokers can be individuals or companies who act as the middleman between shippers and smaller trucking companies.  The broker has a list of customers who need goods hauled and a list of available trucking companies that can handle the load.  

When a broker hires an unsafe trucking company to haul these loads, the broker can be held responsible for injuries or deaths caused by the driver hauling that load.  Plaintiffs can typically bring two types of claims against a broker.  The first is called a negligent selection claim, which alleges that the broker failed to properly investigate the trucking company before putting it out on the road.  The second claim is for vicarious liability, which alleges that the broker either held itself out as a motor carrier or reserved the right to control the trucking company and, therefore, is responsible for the negligent driving that caused the crash.  

In discovery, lawyers must look for documents, such as contracts with the shipper or the bills of lading, where the broker might have listed or described itself as the motor carrier.  These documents might also reveal that the broker reserved the right to track the driver and load.  

Recently, brokers have attempted to challenge negligent selection claims as preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA).  You may be asking, “What does an Aviation Act have to do with trucking wrecks?” In 1994, Congress attempted to protect motor carriers’ economic freedom with the FAAAA, which preempts state laws “related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier . . . or any motor private carrier, broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property.”  49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1) (emphasis added).  However, Congress emphasized that the FAAAA “shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A).  

Brokers are using the FAAAA to contend that, even if the trucking companies and drivers they hire are dangerous and cause fatal collisions on our highways, that a State has no authority to hold them accountable.  So far, the Eleventh and Seventh Circuits have agreed with brokers.  However, the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, and the vast majority of lower courts, agreed that the FAAAA absolutely does not preempt a state’s right to hold brokers accountable for their negligence in putting these unsafe carriers on our highways.

The United States Supreme Court has recently agreed to take this issue up and decide it once and for all. In Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, the Court will determine whether the FAAAA preempts state law negligent selection claims against brokers, and if so, whether the FAAAA’s safety exception saves them. In his petition to the court, the injured plaintiff explained why this question is so important:

Under the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits’ holdings, a broker who knowingly selects a dangerous motor carrier or driver is immune from civil liability. No matter how dangerous the carrier or driver is, and no matter if the broker has actual knowledge of the danger, negligent-selection claims against brokers cannot proceed in the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits…

Truck crashes are a serious problem. In 2021, there were about 500,000 police-reported crashes involving large trucks. These crashes killed almost 6,000 people and injured about 155,000 people. 

Suppose you are injured in a motor-vehicle crash with a truck. To recover for your injuries, you could sue the driver or motor carrier. But they often have few if any assets. In 2022, over 54% of carriers operated just one truck. Carriers can reduce their assets even further by “leas[ing] their terminals and equipment or otherwise leverage[ing] their operations.” 

According to industry research, more than twenty percent of truck shipments are run through brokers. Yet no federal law prohibits brokers from selecting dangerous carriers or drivers. And, in the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits, any state law governing a broker’s selection of a motor carrier or driver is preempted. So, if you’re injured in a truck crash next time you visit Chicago or Miami, you’re effectively on your own.

Shawn MONTGOMERY, Petitioner, v. CARIBE TRANSPORT II, LLC, Yosniel Varela-Mojena, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., C.H. Robinson Company, C.H. Robinson Company, Inc., C.H. Robinson International, Inc., and Caribe Transport, LLC, Respondents., 2025 WL 1593286, at *13–15 (internal citations and footnotes omitted).

We will keep you updated as this issue progresses through the U.S. Supreme Court. 

NHTSA Investigates Tesla’s Full Self-Driving Software

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has intensified its scrutiny of Tesla’s autonomous driving technology, launching a formal investigation into the Full Self-Driving (FSD) system. This investigation, led by the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI), aims to determine whether FSD poses a systemic safety risk to road users. The scope of the Investigation includes:

• Vehicles involved: Nearly 2.9 million Tesla vehicles equipped with FSD software.

• Focus areas: Software behavior, driver interaction, crash patterns, and system limitations.

• Objective: Assess whether FSD’s design or implementation contributes to unsafe driving conditions or violates federal safety standards.

Key Findings and Reported Issues

Crash Incidents

• Multiple crashes have been linked to FSD operation.

• At least four incidents resulted in injuries, raising concerns about the system’s reliability in real-world conditions.

Failure to Warn

• Drivers reported that FSD did not provide adequate alerts before executing maneuvers such as running red lights or making abrupt lane changes.

• Lack of warning undermines the driver’s ability to intervene, especially in high-risk scenarios.

Traffic Signal Misinterpretation

• In several cases, FSD misread or failed to display traffic signal status, leading to illegal or unsafe actions.

• This suggests potential flaws in Tesla’s vision-based recognition system or decision-making algorithms.

Unintended Vehicle Behavior

• Complainants noted that the vehicle made unexpected decisions, such as turning without signaling or stopping abruptly.

• These actions occurred without clear communication to the driver, violating expectations of supervised autonomy.

Historical Context and Regulatory Pressure

This investigation builds on years of scrutiny surrounding Tesla’s driver assistance technologies. The following comes from the investigation and indicates the seriousness of the situation concerning Tesla and safety. 

• Autopilot and FSD Beta have been involved in dozens of crashes, some fatal.

• NHTSA previously concluded that Tesla’s Autopilot design allowed for foreseeable misuse, contributing to avoidable accidents.

• Tesla has faced lawsuits and regulatory inquiries over its marketing of FSD as a “self-driving” solution, despite requiring active driver supervision.

The more our lawyers learn about Tesla relating to safety, the more concerned they get. We will continue to monitor the situation and keep our readers posted.

MOTOR VEHICLE RECALLS 

October 2025 Vehicle Recalls: Key Updates for Drivers

This October has seen several significant vehicle recalls across the auto industry, as top manufacturers address a range of safety concerns—from defective trim components to critical software malfunctions. These developments serve as a timely reminder for drivers to stay vigilant and routinely verify whether their vehicles are affected. Here’s a summary of the most notable recalls impacting U.S. motorists this month.

Chrysler (Jeep)

• Models: 2022–2024 Jeep Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer
• Issue: Quarter trim on the rear structure may detach, posing a hazard
• Units Affected: 123,396 vehicles

Toyota

• Models: 2022–2025 Tundra, Tundra Hybrid; 2023–2025 Sequoia Hybrid
• Issue: Software error may prevent rearview camera image from displaying when reversing
• Units Affected: Nearly 400,000 vehicles

Hyundai and Alfa Romeo

• Issue: Various defects across multiple models, contributing to a total of nearly 650,000 vehicles recalled in October

Ford

Rearview Camera Defect — 1.4 Million Vehicles

• Issue: Rearview cameras may display distorted or blank images when reversing, increasing crash risk.
• Affected Models:
• Ford: C-Max (2015–2016), Escape (2015–2016), Explorer (2015), Fiesta (2019), Flex (2015–2019), Fusion (2016), Mustang (2020)
• Lincoln: MKZ (2015), MKT (2015, 2019)
• Remedy: Dealers will inspect and replace the camera free of charge. Notification letters were mailed in October.

Engine Block Heater Fire Risk — ~60,000 Vehicles

• Issue: Engine block heaters may crack and leak coolant, causing a short circuit and potential under-hood fire when plugged in.
• Advice: Owners were told not to plug in the block heater until repairs are completed.

Mustang Supercharger Kit Recall

• Issue: Ford Performance aftermarket supercharger kits for 2024–2025 Mustang GT and Dark Horse may disable safety features due to a software error, leading to unintended acceleration.
• Fix: Ford will provide a software update by the end of October.

BOATING LITIGATION

Navigating Boating Liability Law: What You Need to Know

Boating is a beloved pastime all across the United States, especially in states like Alabama, where lakes, rivers, and coastal waters offer endless opportunities for recreation. But with the thrill of the open water comes the risk of accidents. When accidents happen, quite often there is liability involved that caused the incident. It’s essential for trial lawyers to understand boating liability law.

What Is Boating Liability?

Boating liability refers to the legal responsibility one party may bear when a boating accident occurs. This can include personal injury, property damage, or even wrongful death. Just like auto accidents, boating incidents often hinge on negligence—whether someone failed to exercise reasonable care while operating a vessel.

Who Can Be Held Liable?

Several parties may be held responsible for the incident depending on the circumstances:

• Boat Operators: They are most commonly liable, especially if the operator was speeding, intoxicated, or ignoring safety rules.

• Boat Owners: A boat owner may be liable if they allowed an unqualified operator to use the vessel. There is also a liability if the owner failed to maintain the vessel properly.

• Rental Companies: A rental company can be held accountable for faulty equipment or inadequate safety briefings.

• Manufacturers: If a defect in the boat or its components contributed to the accident the manufacturer can be liable. 

Common Causes of Boating Accidents

• Operator inexperience or distraction

• Alcohol or drug use

• Speeding or reckless maneuvers

• Poor weather or visibility

• Equipment failure or lack of safety gear

Legal Considerations

Boating accidents may fall under state laws, federal maritime law, or both. In Alabama, for example, the Alabama Marine Patrol Division enforces boating safety regulations, while federal laws may apply in navigable waters. Victims must often navigate complex jurisdictional issues when seeking compensation. It’s necessary to know and understand the laws and legal requirements for the state involved. That is in addition to knowing and understanding the federal laws that apply. 

Parents File Wrongful Death Lawsuit After 10-Year-Old Killed In Harris Lake Boat Crash

The parents of 10-year-old Brooklyn Mae Carroll, who was fatally struck by a boat while swimming in Harris Lake on August 2, have filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Wake County Superior Court. The suit names the boat’s driver, owner, and five other occupants as defendants.

Brooklyn, a fifth grader from Apex, was swimming with a friend and the friend’s parents when she and Jennifer Stehle, the friend’s mother, were hit by a boat driven by 40-year-old Quinten Gregory Kight. Ms. Stehle survived. but lost her leg. Kight’s blood alcohol level was 0.17 more than five hours after the crash. He faces multiple charges, including second-degree murder and impaired boating.

The lawsuit alleges Kight was drinking while operating the boat and that none of the passengers, including boat owner Annemarie Flannigan, attempted to intervene. The plaintiffs also claim no one on board was watching the water ahead, contributing to the collision. After the crash, Kight allegedly continued driving and instructed passengers to throw alcohol cans into the lake. Authorities later recovered at least 89 cans, including several that appeared to have been shot gunned.

The suit accuses Kight of negligence and gross negligence, Flannigan of negligent entrustment, and all passengers of social host liability. Punitive damages are sought by the plaintiffs.

At press time, Kight and Flannigan remain in custody on $1 million bonds. It should be noted that Kight has prior DUI and hit-and-run charges.

On the same day, Jennifer Stehle and her husband filed a separate lawsuit against the same defendants, seeking damages for her injuries and the impact on their marriage.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving has supported the Carroll family. “This was 100% preventable,” said MADD’s Emily Ferraro. “Whether on the road or the water, never operate a vehicle while impaired.”

Source: CBS 17

PRODUCT LIABILITY

Product Liability: Holding Manufacturers Accountable

Mike Andrews, a lawyer in our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section, discusses handling manufacturers accountable for defective products. Mike has successfully handled a large number of product liability cases, including aviation, boating, motor vehicle and workplace cases. Let’s see what Mike has for us. 

From the time we wake up in the morning until we go to bed at night, most people come into contact with hundreds—if not thousands—of consumer products every single day.

Fortunately, most of these products function as intended. However, there are occasions when products fail with catastrophic consequences, resulting in injuries or even death. 

Consumer goods and products span a wide range of categories, including:

• Water heaters, electrical connections, and gas connections that supply power

• Automobiles used daily, along with their subcomponents such as seat backs, fuel systems, roof strength, and tires

• Heavy trucks on the road which should be operated by skilled and trained drivers and equipped with appropriate safety features to protect both the driver and others

• Agricultural equipment, which should include protective structures, guards, and warning systems

• Construction equipment, which must be built with proper metallurgical foundations and sound component design

And the list goes on.

One area that is sometimes overlooked in consumer product safety law involves injuries and deaths that occur on the job due to faulty or defective equipment. Most people understand that if you’re injured at work, you’re entitled to workers’ compensation. However, what many overlook—or may not be aware of—is that the law also allows for what’s known as a third-party case. This type of case is filed against the manufacturer of the defective equipment.

Wyatt Montgomery, A Lawyer In Our Mobile Office, Settles A Defective Pressure Cooker Case

Wyatt Montgomery, a lawyer in our firm’s Mobile, Alabama, office, recently resolved a product liability case involving a defective pressure cooker that caused catastrophic burns to his client.  While using the appliance as intended, the lid suddenly exploded from the pressure cooker, resulting in severe burns and permanent scarring to Wyatt’s client.  The pressure cooker was defective in its design, manufacturing, and lacked adequate warnings to protect consumers from foreseeable harm. 

This case underscores the importance of holding manufacturers accountable when their products fail to meet safety standards.  A number of defective consumer products – like pressure cookers – pose unique risks due to the high-pressure mechanisms involved.  When those systems are not designed or manufactured properly, the consequences can be catastrophic. Wyatt did a very good job in this case. 

Beasley Allen lawyers are committed to consumer safety and handle product liability litigation.  They handle cases involving defective household products, including pressure cookers and other appliances.  If you encounter similar cases or have clients affected by dangerous consumer goods, Beasley Allen lawyers would be honored to have the opportunity to work with you.

AVIATION LITIGATION

Jury Awards $16.8 Million In Alaskan Plane Crash Case

A Washington state jury has awarded $16.8 million to the family of David Oltman, who died in a 2019 plane crash in Dutch Harbor, Alaska. The case was tried in King County Superior Court. The jury found Peninsula Aviation Services (PenAir) — a now-defunct regional airline — negligent and fully liable for the crash.

Jurors determined PenAir was 70% responsible for the crash, with the remaining 30% attributed to APPH Ltd., a British firm that serviced the plane’s landing gear. It should be noted that Judge Mark Larrañaga, in pretrial proceedings, had ruled PenAir vicariously liable for APPH’s negligence, making PenAir responsible for the full award.

The damages awarded by the jury include:

• $9.5 million in noneconomic losses to Oltman’s widow, children, and estate;

• $3.5 million for lost earnings and household services; and

• $3.8 million for loss of interest in Oltman’s business, BKR Construction Services.

The crash occurred during landing when the plane overran the runway and broke through a perimeter fence. The NTSB attributed the accident to incorrect wiring of the landing gear, which disabled the anti-skid braking system. Oltman was the only fatality among 42 passengers.

Even though PenAir attempted to shift blame to aircraft manufacturer Saab AB, APPH, and the state of Alaska, the jury found no fault with those parties. The plaintiffs’ lawyers contended PenAir ignored warning signs, including a prior anti-skid error code and visible tire damage, and criticized the pilot’s decision to land with a tailwind — a known aviation risk.

Oltman’s family is represented by Clay Miller, Josh Birmingham, Lawrence R. Lassiter and Garrett Stanford of Miller Weisbrod Olesky LLP, Patrick H. LePley of the LePley Law Firm, and Matthew R. Johnson of Gravis Law PLLC.

The case is Oltman v. Peninsula Aviation Services Inc., case number 20-2-14060-1, in King County Superior Court, Washington.

Source: Law360

Beasley Allen Aviation Litigation Team

When tragedy strikes in the skies, victims and their families need more than sympathy—they deserve justice. Leading the charge in aviation litigation is Beasley Allen lawyer Mike Andrews. Mike, author of Aviation Litigation & Accident Investigation, is one of the Top 10 Aviation Attorneys named by the National Trial Lawyers Association. Mike has represented families impacted by some of the most devastating aviation disasters, including the Boeing 737 Max 8 crashes. Currently, Mike and the Beasley Allen Aviation Litigation Team are advocating for justice on behalf of more than 125 families affected by the Air India Flight 171 crash. 

Aviation crashes often make headlines due to their devastating impact, but behind every incident is a story of preventable failure. Whether you are seeking answers after a catastrophic airline disaster or a loved one was injured in a helicopter or small plane crash, an experienced aviation accident lawyer can help navigate the legal complexities and fight for the compensation you deserve.

Mike Andrews, LaBarron Boone, and Dana Taunton, from our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section, compose our Aviation Litigation Team. Other Beasley Allen lawyers in the Section assist the team with individual cases as needed. 

EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION

The Employer Knew And Did Nothing: Investigating Negligent Retention And Supervision Cases

Generally, when you hear about a sexual assault in the workplace case, Title VII claims overtake the conversation. However, when an employer knew or should have known that the offending employee posed a risk and failed to act, negligent retention and supervision claims are a powerful tool to secure justice for the injured party. Unlike federal Title VII claims, these cases may be brought in state court. The injured party has the opportunity to be awarded punitive damages. Significantly, these cases may be ripe for broader discovery.

Negligent retention or negligent supervision means that the employer retained an employee who was a known risk or that the employer failed to appropriately monitor the employee to ensure proper behavior.  Although it will vary by jurisdiction, these elements will be in every case:

• duty of care; 

• breach of that duty; 

• causation; and, 

• damages. 

When evaluating these cases, it’s important to learn if there were prior complaints, disciplinary issues, or other red flags that would indicate to the employer that the offending employee has a pattern of misconduct. 

While investigating potential claims, be prepared for three of the most common defenses. “But we didn’t know,” is the defense most every employer who has ever faced a negligent retention/supervision claim will use. However, when investigating these claims, be ready to get witness statements, depositions, and HR files related to the offending employee. This will allow you to be able to piece together the evidence that the employer either knew or should have known of the risk to the injured employee and others. 

“We investigated” is another standard defense by an employee in negligent supervision/retention cases. While investigating your case, be mindful of what would be considered an adequate and impartial internal review, as not all are created equal.

“It was outside the scope of the employment,” is another defense that an employer may well use. Proper investigation and good discovery can handle this defense. 

But tailoring your complaint to show that the conduct was foreseeable and was done in a workplace context can help combat these defenses before they are even made by the employer. 

Negligent retention and supervision cases also offer a critical path to justice for victims of workplace sexual assaults, especially where the employer did not act in a meaningful way to address known risks. These claims shift from isolated incidents to exposing institutional failures to protect employees from unwanted sexual contact, exposing systematic failures to protect. Most importantly, these cases affirm that employers have a duty to prevent misconduct – rather than just responding to actual claims. 

          Beasley Allen lawyers have handled many different types of workplace misconduct cases where employees had a history of bad conduct and employers failed to act, creating a hostile work environment for other employees. No one should be exposed to a hostile work environment, and there are laws in place to protect employees and the environment they work within that ensure a safe workplace. 

Should anyone you know be experiencing a hostile work environment, encourage them to contact a lawyer so their rights in the workplace can be protected. 

Eleventh Circuit Ruling Sparks Debate Over ERISA Exhaustion Rule

A recent Eleventh Circuit decision could signal a major shift in how ERISA claims are handled, particularly regarding the long-standing requirement that plaintiffs exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. 

In a unanimous opinion, a three-judge panel upheld the dismissal of a proposed class action against Inland Fresh Seafood Corp. of America Inc., citing the Eleventh Circuit’s strict 1985 precedent in Mason v. Continental Group Inc. That ruling requires administrative exhaustion even for fiduciary breach claims under ERISA. 

However, a concurrence by Judges Adalberto Jordan and Bill Pryor is drawing attention for urging the full court to reconsider and potentially overturn that precedent. The judges argued that ERISA itself does not mandate exhaustion and cited the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Jones v. Bock, which rejected a similar judicially created rule under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 

The concurrence by the panel is a promising development, suggesting the Eleventh Circuit may soon align with other circuits that do not require exhaustion for fiduciary breach and statutory ERISA claims. Currently, only the Eleventh and Seventh Circuits enforce such a rule, while the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits do not. 

The Inland Fresh case began in 2022, when employees alleged mismanagement of their employee stock ownership plan. After a Georgia federal court dismissed the case in 2023, the plaintiffs appealed and requested en banc review, which was initially denied. Hopefully, the panel’s opinion and the concurrence is an indication that the full court may revisit the issue.

Some legal experts believe the case could ultimately reach the Supreme Court. If so, the ERISA litigation could be reshaped nationwide. Until then, the debate over administrative exhaustion remains a critical issue for both plaintiffs and employers navigating the complexities of employee benefits law.

Source: Law360

The Beasley Allen Employment Litigation Team

   Lawyers on our firm’s Employment Litigation Team continue to handle a number of employment-related litigation cases around the country. They also handle the firm’s Qui Tam Litigation (Whistleblower cases). Whistleblowers can also have a retaliation claim related to their False Claims Act (FCA) claim. Quite often, an employee as a whistleblower will be the “original source” of an FCA claim. 

Our Employment Litigation Team has had tremendous success in both employment cases and qui tam cases. Currently, the team is pursuing some high-profile cases in courts around the country. We will write more on the FCA litigation in the Whistleblower Section.

Whistleblower Litigation

Georgia Tech Research Corporation Agrees To Pay $875,000 To Resolve Civil Cyber-Fraud Litigation

On September 30, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) announced that a company affiliated with the Georgia Institute of Technology – Georgia Tech Research Corporation (GTRC) – has agreed to pay $875,000 U.S. Government to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by knowingly failing to meet cybersecurity requirements for obtaining Pentagon contracts. 

The FCA lawsuit was filed in 2022 by two Georgia Tech whistleblowers who worked on the university’s cybersecurity team. The Justice Department joined the suit two years later on behalf of the Defense Department, Air Force and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. 

The settlement resolves allegations against Georgia Tech and GTRC concerning their failure to install antivirus tools at Georgia Tech’s Astrolavos Lab while it conducted sensitive cyber-defense research for the Pentagon. 

The Justice Department had also said that Georgia Tech and GTRC submitted a false cybersecurity assessment score to the Defense Department. “Failure to follow required cybersecurity requirements puts all of us at risk,” said Stacy Bostjanick, Chief Defense Industrial Base Cybersecurity, Deputy Chief Information Officer for Cybersecurity, Office of the Chief Information Officer. “Those who knowingly provide deficient cybersecurity products or services, misrepresent their cybersecurity practices or protocols, or violate obligations to monitor and report cybersecurity incidents and breaches must be held accountable. Enforcement efforts like this should serve as a reminder to the industry to prioritize DoD cybersecurity compliance. 

It’s important to understand that the FCA permits private persons – known as “relators” – to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the government and to share in any recovery. The FCA also permits the Government to intervene and take over the lawsuit, as it did in this case, as to certain claims. The United States intervened in the qui tam suit and filed its own complaint in August 2024. The government will pay the two whistleblowers, Kyle Koza and Christopher Craig, $201,250 out of the settlement.

The Justice Department began using the False Claims Act in 2022 to punish contractors over cybersecurity shortcomings under its Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative. It has since settled with a number of parties in those cases. The settlement includes: 

• A settlement for $9 million with Aerojet Rocketdyne, 

• $8.4 million with Raytheon and Nightwing, 

• $4.6 million with MORSECORP and 

• $4 million with Verizon Business Network Services. 

“When contractors fail to follow the required cybersecurity standards in their DoD contracts, they leave sensitive government information vulnerable to malicious actors and cyber threats,” said Brett Shumate, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s Civil Division.

Beasley Allen lawyers have been successful in many False Claims Act cases, including successfully trying cases and obtaining favorable verdicts for the whistleblowers. 

Source: U.S. Department of Justice

The Beasley Allen Whistleblower Litigation Team  

Beasley Allen lawyers continue to represent whistleblowers in litigation around the country. Claims continue to be made against multiple bad actors in the corporate world. The widespread Whistleblower litigation has been increasing nationwide at a rapid pace. However, there has recently been strong opposition to the litigation instigated and carried out by some powerful forces in Corporate America. Beasley Allen lawyers are watching this activity closely. 

If you are aware of fraud being committed against the federal or state governments, you could be rewarded for reporting the fraud.  If you have questions about whether you qualify as a whistleblower or you need help with a case, a Beasley Allen lawyer will be glad to make a free and confidential evaluation of your claim at 800-898-2034 or by email.   

Lawyers on our Whistleblower Litigation Team are listed below. You can contact Michelle Fulmer, Director of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section. Members of the team include: Lance Gould, Larry Golston, Lauren Miles, Leon Hampton, Jessi Haynes and Tyner Helms.

Workplace Litigation

On The Job- Construction Fatality

Ben Keen, a lawyer in our Atlanta office, is currently investigating a devastating workplace injury involving an employee of Seminole Equipment, Inc. who fell to his tragic death due to severely insufficient safety measures taken by his employer. The incident occurred on April 7, 2025, and raises serious questions about product safety and liability under Georgia law.

We will give you some information about this case. In his job, the client was required to climb under a highway bridge where the Ogeechee River rests below. Seminole Equipment, Inc. was required to have adequate safety measures in place to protect the employee, given the fact that the work is being performed on an elevated surface and the fact that water is located below the area where the work was performed. Unfortunately, Seminole Equipment, Inc. did not have adequate safety nets to protect our client in the event of a fall. Rather, Seminole used portions of chain link fence that were secured using zip ties.  

OSHA has cited Seminole for this violation, among other OSHA violations. This is not the first time this company has been cited for this specific workplace safety failure. Additionally, Seminole did not have a boat nearby as required by law to rescue personnel in the event of an emergency.  The OSHA standards are in place to prevent the specific harm the client experienced. Because Seminole fell grossly short of their safe workplace practices, Ben’s client fell into the river, where he was taken by the current and lost in the dark waters. His body was ultimately found days later. 

Ben is investigating all claims permissible under Georgia law to hold this company accountable for this unfortunate death. Ben is also evaluating whether third-party construction design entities may share liability. This case underscores the importance of having rigorous safety standards in the workplace. It will also utilize the legal remedies available to injured workers under Georgia’s tort framework. 

PREMISES LIABILITY LITIGATION

Georgia Life Safety Code And The Importance Of Retaining A Qualified Expert

Housing complexes owe a legal duty to those residing at the complex to take all necessary actions to ensure that the complex is in a safe condition, free from any fire and safety hazards. Premises that are improperly maintained or constructed in an unsafe manner can lead to catastrophic injuries or death. This is definitely applicable in relation to fire hazards. Fire safety codes are important for addressing serious fire hazards. The codes address conditions that greatly increase the risk of a catastrophic fire; the ability of occupants to promptly detect a developing fire-related event; and critically, the ability of tenants to have a prompt and safe means of escape in the event of an uncontrolled, serious fire-related event. 

The State of Georgia has adopted NFPA 101 (2018), which, in conjunction with any state amendments, constitutes the “Georgia Life Safety Code.” “The Code addresses those construction, protection, and occupancy features necessary to minimize danger to life from the effects of fire, including smoke, heat, and toxic gases created during a fire.”

When handling a premises liability case based on a fire safety violation, it is essential to establish the industry standard. Under Georgia law, violations of mandatory building, maintenance, and fire codes constitute negligence per se. Thus, it is important to have a qualified expert who can help establish any Georgia Life Safety Code violations. In addition, having a fire safety expert can often shed light on additional ordinances that a complex has violated. 

Doing an open records request to see what city ordinances a complex has violated is always a necessary step in a premises liability case. Parker Miller and Key Lamberth have extensive experience with fire-related premises liability cases, and they know firsthand the importance of retaining a fire expert who can provide insight on the Georgia Life Safety Code. 

Bestway Faces Class Action Over Recalled Pools Linked To Child Deaths

Bestway is facing a proposed class action lawsuit in Illinois federal court over the recall of five million above-ground pools, which have been linked to the drowning deaths of nine children. The suit, filed by California resident Leah Holloway, claims the company failed to act for years despite a known design flaw that allowed children to climb into the pools using external compression straps.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the recall in June, calling the defect a “textbook example” of a dangerous design. Plaintiff Holloway alleges that Bestway misled consumers about the safety of its products and that the recall process places an undue burden on pool owners, requiring them to drain their pools and install a rope-based repair kit.

Although the kit is free, consumers must locate their pool’s product model number, request the kit, and wait for delivery before making repairs—often incurring additional costs for water refills and labor. Plaintiff Holloway, who purchased her pool for $427 on Amazon, says she was unaware of any safety issues until the recall.

The lawsuit seeks to represent both California and nationwide consumers and includes claims of negligence, unjust enrichment, and violations of California’s false advertising and unfair competition laws. 

Plaintiff Holloway is represented by Michael R. Reese of Reese LLP, Jason P. Sultzer and Charles Schimmel of Sultzer & Lipari PLLC and Jeffrey K. Brown and Brett R. Cohen of Leeds Brown Law PC.

The case is Holloway v. Bestway USA Inc. et al., case number 1:25-cv-12853 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Source: Law360

SECURITIES, ANTITRUST AND INVESTMENT LITIGATION

Some Defendants In Apartment Price Fixing Cases Settle

Some settlements have been announced in two sets of antitrust cases involving claims that landlords and apartment owners shared confidential information to drive up rental costs, harming consumers. The two consolidated cases are In re: Yardi Revenue Management Antitrust Litigation, pending in the Western District of Washington, and In Re: RealPage Inc., Rental Software Antitrust Litigation, an MDL in the Middle District of Tennessee. Both announced settlements in September and October of this year. 

In the Yardi case, the classes of plaintiffs claim that the defendants use Yardi’s RENTmaximizer software to artificially raise rents in violation of antitrust laws. One of the defendants, FPI Management Inc., agreed to a $2.8 million settlement to be released from the litigation. As part of the agreement, FPI will “provide reasonable evidentiary cooperation” to the plaintiffs as they continue their claims against the remaining defendants. 

For the RealPage litigation, the classes are seeking approval of $141 million, but the combined amount represents 26 settlements, combined.  Similar to the Yardi case, the RealPage litigation involves claims that the various defendants shared nonpublic information through the RealPage platform with the intent to increase rent prices. Plaintiffs told the court that the settlements were primarily with the smallest landlord-defendants in the litigation, and some were only property managers. 

Both factual scenarios describe hub-and-spoke conspiracies where the entities along the spokes (like the rim of a wheel) feed information to the center hub, which consolidates the information and passes it back out to the spokes.  The hub’s role is to pass information between would-be competitors. Ultimately, the hub serves as a means of communication with what would otherwise be nonpublic information, and the spokes use that information to avoid truly competing with each other.

Judge Finalizes Alphabet’s $500 Million Investor Settlement

U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin, a California federal judge, has approved Alphabet Inc.’s $500 million settlement resolving investor claims that Google executives engaged in anticompetitive practices. The judge also awarded $37 million in attorney fees.

The lawsuit, brought by retirement system investors, accused Alphabet of monopolistic behavior in advertising, search, and Google Play services, which led to regulatory scrutiny and legal actions. As part of the settlement, Alphabet agreed to establish a board-level Risk & Compliance Committee to oversee legal and competition-related risks.

Even though Alphabet and its executives, including founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, denied wrongdoing, they supported the settlement. It’s important that the attorney fees will be covered by Alphabet’s directors and officers insurance. This means the fees will have no impact on the settlement benefits.

The absence of shareholder objections and recent antitrust rulings against Google reinforced the need for the reforms, according to the plaintiffs. Judge Lin had initially approved the settlement in July and finalized it after confirming its fairness and shareholder support.

The retirement systems are represented by Patrick Coughlin, Maxwell R. Huffman, Geoffrey M. Johnson, Donald A. Broggi and Jing-Li Yu of Scott + Scott Attorneys at Law LLP.

The Bucks County Employees’ Retirement System is also represented by Michael J. Boni and Joshua D. Snyder of Boni Zack & Snyder LLC.

The case is In re: Alphabet Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, case number 3:21-cv-09388, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Source: Law360

Judge Grants Preliminary Approval To $1.5 Billion Anthropic Copyright Settlement

A California federal judge has preliminarily approved a $1.5 billion settlement between Anthropic PBC and a class of authors who accused the AI company of illegally using their copyrighted works to train its language model, Claude. The settlement, described by plaintiffs’ counsel as the “largest copyright recovery of all time,” resolves claims that Anthropic used pirated and scanned books without permission.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup called the agreement “fair,” but warned of potential complications in administering the settlement. The judge emphasized the need for transparency and oversight, cautioning against any side deals or unethical opt-out arrangements.

The settlement covers approximately 452,460 works, with an estimated payout of $3,000 per work. It includes provisions for resolving disputes between authors and publishers and allows flexibility in how funds are split. Anthropic must also destroy datasets containing pirated books, and the settlement only applies to conduct before August 25, 2025.

Judge Alsup previously ruled that training AI on legally acquired books constitutes transformative fair use but allowed the authors’ piracy claims to proceed to trial. The settlement was announced two months later.

Both sides expressed satisfaction with the preliminary approval. The authors said the ruling sends a message to AI developers about respecting creators’ rights, while Anthropic stated the settlement allows it to focus on building safe and innovative AI systems. Final approval of the settlement is pending and may extend beyond Judge Alsup’s planned retirement at the end of the year.

The authors are represented by Justin A. Nelson, Alejandra C. Salinas, Rohit D. Nath, Michael Adamson, Jordan W. Connors, J. Craig Smyser and Samir Doshi of Susman Godfrey LLP, Rachel Geman, Jacob S. Miller, Danna Z. Elmasry, Daniel M. Hutchinson, Jallé H. Dafa, Amelia Haselkorn and Betsy A. Sugar of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Jay Edelson and J. Eli Wade-Scott of Edelson PC, Matthew J. Oppenheim and Jeffrey M. Gould of Oppenheim & Zebrak LLP and Scott J. Sholder of Cowan DeBaets Abrahams & Sheppard LLP. 

The case is Andrea Bartz et al. v. Anthropic PBC, case number 3:24-cv-05417, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Source: Law360

Cummins Reaches Preliminary Settlement In Investor Lawsuit Over Emissions Scandal

Cummins Inc. and investor Richard Kraemer have reached a preliminary agreement to settle proposed class action claims alleging the engine manufacturer misled shareholders by concealing the use of illegal emissions defeat devices in certain diesel engines. The settlement, which at press time was still being formalized, follows Cummins’ record-breaking $2 billion resolution with federal and state regulators over Clean Air Act violations.

The investor lawsuit centers on Cummins’ diesel engines used in Ram-branded trucks, which regulators found were equipped with devices that allowed the vehicles to bypass emissions tests while emitting excessive nitrogen oxide. According to the complaint, 630,000 engines were affected—330,000 of them installed after Cummins was already under investigation.

Kraemer claims Cummins failed to prepare for regulatory fallout, misleading investors about its compliance and environmental commitments. The company’s December 2023 settlement with regulators included a $1.675 billion civil penalty—the largest ever under the Clean Air Act—and $326 million for emissions mitigation projects.

Cummins did not admit wrongdoing and stated it had already addressed many of the issues raised. The investor settlement, once finalized and approved, would resolve securities fraud allegations tied to the emissions scandal.

Kraemer is represented by Brian B. Alexander of The Rosen Law Firm, PA and Eric S. Pavlack and Colin E. Flora of Pavlack Law LLC.

The case is Baker v. Cummins Inc. et al., case number 1:25-cv-00430, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

Source: Law360

$445.5 Million Verdict In Patent Infringement Case Against Samsung

A federal court jury in Marshall, Texas, has ordered Samsung Electronics to pay nearly $445.5 million to Collision Communications for infringing on four patents tied to 4G, 5G, and Wi-Fi technologies. The jury found that Samsung’s wireless-enabled devices—including Galaxy smartphones and laptops—violated patents aimed at improving network efficiency.

Collision Communications, based in Peterborough, New Hampshire, filed the lawsuit in 2023, alleging the patents originated from research by defense contractor BAE Systems, which is not a party to the case. Samsung denied the claims and challenged the validity of the patents.

This verdict adds to a string of high-dollar patent infringement rulings against Samsung in the same Texas court in recent years. 

Source: Claims Journal

Securities Litigation At Beasley Allen 

Lawyers in our firm’s Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section continue to work on a number of cases involving corporate fraud involving security issues. James Eubank heads out Securities Litigation Team. James worked for years as a securities regulator with the Alabama Securities Commission. While he was with the state, James was involved in a number of important securities fraud investigations.   

The Securities Litigation Team is composed of the following lawyers from our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section: James Eubank, Demet Basar, Rebecca Gilliland and Paul Evans. Dee Miles, who heads the Section, also works with the team.  

INSURANCE LITIGATION AT BEASLEY ALLEN

Split Outcomes In Auto Insurance Class Actions Over Totaled Vehicle Values

The evolving legal landscape surrounding insurance valuation practices continues as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed certification of a class of auto policyholders whose payouts were allegedly reduced by State Farm Automobile Insurance applying “typical negotiation” deductions.  The insurer allegedly underpaid policyholders with totaled vehicles by assuming, when calculating the actual cash value of a vehicle, that a willing buyer will not pay the list price of a vehicle and will bargain with a car dealer for a lower purchase price. 

The Third, Fourth, Seventh and Ninth circuits have previously upheld denial of or reversed the granting of class certification in similar cases concerning typical negotiation deductions.  Those circuits held that the issues were too individualized for class certification and that each class member would have to prove individually that they were underpaid. 

However, the Sixth Circuit held that the Western District of Tennessee did not abuse its discretion in certifying a class of approximately 90,000 State Farm automobile insurance policyholders in Tennessee.  The policyholders had pled allegations of breach of contract and violations of Tennessee law.  Disagreeing with its sister circuits, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that allegations that State Farm used a class-wide methodology in applying a typical negotiation discount, which led to class members receiving less than the actual cash value of their totaled vehicles.  

Beasley Allen continues to monitor developments in insurance litigation and advocates for policyholders and providers affected by unfair valuation and reimbursement practices. Paul Evans and Rebecca Gilliland handle litigation of insurance claims for our firm. Dee Miles, head of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, also handles insurance cases and, in a supervising capacity, many of the cases handled by lawyers in the Section.  

Source: National Law Journal

Xcel Energy, Telecom Firms Agree To $640 Million Marshall Fire Settlement

Xcel Energy and two telecom companies – Qwest Corp. and Teleport Communications America – have reached a $640 million settlement to resolve claims from the devastating Marshall Fire that swept through Boulder County, Colorado, in December 2021. The fire destroyed over 900 homes, caused billions in damage, and claimed two lives, making it the most destructive wildfire in Colorado history.

The settlement, reached just before jury selection was set to begin, addresses lawsuits from thousands of residents, Boulder County, and insurance companies. Xcel will cover $350 million through insurance and absorb the remaining $290 million as a loss in its third-quarter earnings. The company emphasized that customers will not bear any of the financial burden.

Despite agreeing to the settlement, Xcel continues to claim that its equipment did not cause or contribute to the fire. Xcel denies any wrongdoing. The agreement is still pending final documentation and requires individual plaintiffs to opt in.

An investigation in 2023 concluded the fire began with a trash burn on property owned by the Twelve Tribes religious group. A second blaze, believed to have been sparked by hot particles from a damaged Xcel power line, intensified the disaster. Boulder County District Attorney Michael Dougherty reaffirmed this finding, citing photographic evidence and expert inspections.

Michael Aguirre, a lawyer experienced in wildfire litigation, says that the next phase—drafting the settlement and appointing an administrator—will be critical. He warned victims not to expect full compensation or equal payouts, as distributions will vary based on the nature of each claim, from property loss to emotional distress.

The settlement aims to bring closure to affected communities, though questions remain about how funds will be divided between insurers and victims. Stay tuned!

Beasley Allen Insurance Litigation Team 

Lawyers in our firm’s Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section are currently working on a number of cases involving insurance matters. The Beasley Allen Insurance Litigation Team includes the following lawyers from our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section: Rebecca Gilliland, Paul Evans, Lauren Miles and Jessi Haynes. Dee Miles, who heads the Section, also works with the team.  

Class Action Litigation

U.S. District Court Judge Grants Final Approval Of The $173 Million GM 5.3L Engine Class Action Settlements

After nearly a decade of litigation, justice has arrived for thousands of car owners who unknowingly purchased GM vehicles with defective engines. U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen has given final approval to a $150 million class action settlement in Siqueiros v. General Motors LLC—a case that’s been closely watched since its filing in 2016.

Beasley Allen lawyers Dee Miles, Clay Barnett, Rebecca Gilliland, Mitch Williams, and Dylan Martin, along with lawyers from DiCello Levitt, represent plaintiffs and class members in the class action lawsuits against General Motors, LLC (GM), filed in the Northern District of California (Siqueiros) and Eastern District of Oklahoma (Hampton). In April 2025, our lawyers secured a major settlement that will provide significant cash payments to class members.

On December 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against GM alleging its model year 2011-2014 Chevrolet Avalanche, Silverado, Suburban, and Tahoe, and 2011-2014 GMC Sierra, Yukon, and Yukon XL trucks and SUVs manufactured on or after February 10, 2011 (the Class Vehicles), contained a defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 LC9 engine (Gen IV) piston ring assembly that caused engine misfires and shutdown events, excessive oil consumption resulting in low oil levels, insufficient lubricity levels, and corresponding internal engine component damage (Oil Consumption Defect). 

Plaintiffs alleged that GM began receiving owner complaints of excessive oil consumption as early as 2007, but continued to manufacture and sell the Class Vehicles without disclosing or repairing the defect. Despite having knowledge of this defect for many years, GM refused to provide every Class member with upgraded piston ring assemblies free of charge. 

Instead, GM quietly issued technical service bulletins (TSBs) to its dealerships to implement design changes to the engines’ positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) system and active fuel management (AFM) pressure relief valve. 

Plaintiffs alleged these changes did not address the root cause of the defect and did not resolve excessive oil consumption in Class Vehicles. Rather, as GM stated in its TSBs, the ultimate fix for the oil consumption problem was the replacement of the piston assemblies. 

In September 2022, plaintiffs went to trial on three class claims and, on October 4, 2022, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and the classes, awarding the full amount of the plaintiffs’ requested damages—$2,700 per Class Member, which would total $100 million. Following the trial, plaintiffs defeated GM’s motions for decertification and judgment as a matter of law and moved for final judgment, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. 

On April 14, 2025, while plaintiffs’ motions were pending, the parties reached a settlement that will provide significant cash payments to over 40,000 class members. The final approval hearing was held on October 8, before U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in the Northern District of California. Judge Chen, finding the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 satisfied, granted final approval of a class action settlement covering all current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that, as of May 23, 2022, was purchased or leased in new condition in the State of California, from a GM-authorized dealer in the State of Idaho, or in the State of North Carolina. 

Under the settlement, GM will provide a settlement fund of 150 million, which will be proportionally distributed to Class members after payment of administration expenses, attorneys’ fees and expenses, and service awards to the class plaintiffs. Judge Chen described the resolution of these cases as “extraordinary.”

On April 29, 2025, plaintiffs reached a settlement in a similar class action lawsuit, Hampton v. General Motors LLC, filed in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On September 15, 2025, Judge Gerald Jackson, finding the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 satisfied, granted final approval of a class action settlement covering all current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that, as of September 26, 2024, was purchased or leased in the State of Oklahoma. The Hampton settlement will provide a gross fund of nearly $25 million for settlement payments to Oklahoma Class members. 

With nearly 43,000 class members notified and zero objections filed, this settlement sets a new standard for consumer justice.

The Gen IV 5.3 Engine cases are Siqueiros, et al. v. General Motors LLC, filed in the United States District Court for the North District of California, and Hampton v. General Motors, LLC, filed in the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

Leadership Appointed For Aflac Data Beach Suit

A Georgia federal judge has appointed a six-member leadership team to oversee a proposed class action lawsuit against Aflac Inc. This follows the consolidation of nearly two dozen cases related to an alleged data breach. U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land issued an order naming lawyers from six different law firms to guide the litigation. These firms include Beasley Allen, along with Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC, Morgan & Morgan PA, Pope McGlamry Kilpatrick Morrison & Norwood PC, Kopelowitz Ostrow PA, and Gibson Consumer Law Group.

The consolidated suit, led by Plaintiff Eleanor Griffin, states that Aflac was hacked in June by a sophisticated cybercrime group, resulting in the exposure of sensitive customer information. Ms. Griffin says the breach was due to Aflac’s failure to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures, leaving customers vulnerable to fraud and identity theft. The plaintiffs are pursuing claims of negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. They are seeking both financial compensation and improvements to Aflac’s data protection protocols.

Judge Land has given the legal team 60 days to file an amended complaint, which will serve as the foundation for the class action moving forward. This case highlights growing legal and regulatory pressure on companies to safeguard consumer data and respond swiftly to cybersecurity threats.

The case is In re: Aflac Inc. Data Breach Litigation, case number 4:25-cv-00183, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.

Source: Law360

GM Faces Class Action Over Alleged Brake Defects In 2025 Models

General Motors (GM) LLC is facing a proposed class action in Pennsylvania federal court. GM is accused of knowingly selling vehicles with dangerously defective brake systems. Plaintiffs Eric Barron of Pennsylvania and Chelsey Thompson of New York claim that several 2025 models — including the Chevrolet Traverse, GMC Acadia, Buick Enclave, Chevrolet Colorado, and GMC Canyon — contain faulty master brake cylinder assemblies that can fail suddenly and without warning.

According to the complaint, both Barron and Thompson experienced brake failures within weeks of purchasing their new Traverses in April 2025. Barron reported alarming dashboard warnings and feared losing braking ability mid-drive, while Thompson’s dealership confirmed a failed master cylinder.

It’s alleged in the lawsuit that the defect compromises vehicle safety, increases the risk of collisions, and significantly reduces the cars’ value. The master brake cylinder, a key component of the hydraulic braking system, is said to suffer from premature seal failure, leading to loss of hydraulic pressure and brake function.

Despite prior issues with similar components in 2024 models and internal knowledge from testing and consumer complaints, GM failed to disclose the defect, issue a recall, or provide timely repairs under warranty. The company only issued a limited service update for the 2025 Buick Enclave and did not notify dealerships of broader concerns.

The plaintiffs accuse GM of fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, lemon law violations, and deceptive trade practices. They seek monetary damages, restitution, and either replacement vehicles or extended warranties and repairs.

Barron, Thompson, and the proposed class are represented by Sergei Lemberg of Lemberg Law LLC. 

The case is Eric Barron and Chelsey Thompson et al. v. General Motors LLC, case number 2:25-cv-05696, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Source: Law360

Visa And MasterCard Agree To $199.5 Million Settlement Over Fraud Chargeback Dispute

Visa Inc. and MasterCard International Corp. have agreed to pay a combined $199.5 million to settle a long-running class action lawsuit accusing them of unfairly shifting fraud-related chargeback costs onto merchants. The suit, filed in 2016, claims the credit card companies coordinated rule changes that penalized merchants lacking EMV-compliant terminals after October 2015.

Under the proposed settlement, Visa will contribute $119.7 million and MasterCard $79.8 million to a settlement fund. Class counsel plans to seek up to $54.86 million in attorney fees and $3 million in expenses. This follows a separate $32.2 million proposed settlement with Discover and American Express announced in June, bringing the total potential recovery to $231.7 million.

The class includes merchants who incurred unreimbursed chargebacks between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2017. Plaintiffs estimate total damages at $1.45 billion, with Visa and MasterCard accounting for over $1.3 billion of that amount. The settlement represents roughly 13.7% of the best-case damages and over 50% of what might be recoverable under summary judgment standards.

The case had been set for trial after the court denied motions for summary judgment and class decertification. At press time, both settlements were pending court approval.

The merchants are represented by George C. Aguilar, Michael J. Nicoud and Jacob W. Ogbozo of Robbins LLP, John W. Devine of Devine Goodman & Rasco LLP and Thomas G. Amon of the Law Offices of Thomas G. Amon.

The case is B&R Supermarket Inc. et al. v. Visa Inc. et al., case number 1:17-cv-02738, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Source: Law360

Sixth Circuit Upholds Class Certification In State Farm Total-Loss Valuation Lawsuit

A Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals panel has affirmed the certification of a class action lawsuit against State Farm, alleging the insurer systematically undervalued totaled vehicles in Tennessee. The class, led by Plaintiff Jessica Clippinger, includes approximately 90,000 policyholders who claim State Farm breached its contract by using a “typical negotiation adjustment” that artificially reduced payouts for total-loss claims.

The court agreed that the central issue—whether State Farm’s valuation method resulted in lower-than-promised “actual cash value”—could be resolved through class-wide proof. Plaintiffs contend that the adjustment assumes buyers negotiate down from advertised prices, even though used cars often sell above asking price in today’s market.

State Farm challenged Clippinger’s inclusion in the class, noting she ultimately received a higher payout after appraisal. However, the court ruled she remains a valid class member because she seeks liability findings consistent with the broader claims.

State Farm expressed disagreement with the ruling and says it’s evaluating its next steps. The case continues to spotlight insurer practices in vehicle valuation and their impact on consumer compensation.

Clippinger and the policyholders are represented by Hank Bates and Lee Lowther of Carney Bates & Pulliam PLLC, and by Jacob L. Phillips of Jacobson Phillips PLLC.

The case is Jessica Clippinger v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., case number 24-5421, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Source: Law360

MASS TORTS LITIGATION

Depo-Provera Plaintiffs Increase To Over 1,300

Plaintiffs in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) alleging harm from the birth-control medication Depo-Provera have surpassed 1,300, which is triple the number of cases filed since the litigation first began.  The MDL recently held preemption arguments concerning whether Defendants Pfizer and related companies provided adequate warning information to the FDA.  Should plaintiffs prevail on the preemption issue, the MDL will quickly transition to the general causation phase.  

The litigation was consolidated as an MDL in the Northern District of Florida after an influx of lawsuits surrounding Depo-Provera occurred in 2024, after studies showed an increased risk of Depo-Provera use to meningioma tumors, which are tumors that develop on the membrane covering the brain and spinal cord. Although most often benign, meningiomas can create a myriad of neurological issues, such as seizures, strokes, and migraines.  Many, if not most, meningiomas require lifelong monitoring, and some may not be operated on depending on where they are in the brain.

Beasley Allen lawyers Roger Smith and Mary Cam Raybon are actively investigating cases involving Depo-Provera use for at least one (1) year where the injured later suffered a cerebral or spinal meningioma.  

Hair Relaxer Update – Georgia Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Plaintiffs In Key Statute Of Repose Issue

On October 15, 2025, the Georgia Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that dismissed a hair relaxer case brought by Plaintiff Kiara Burroughs. The lower court and appellate court held that her claims should be barred under Georgia’s 10-year statute of repose, which requires strict products liability claims to be brought within “ten years from the date of the first sale for use or consumption of the personal property causing … the injury.” Ga. Stat. § 51-1- 11(b)(2).

As the Supreme Court noted, applying this statute of repose for a single product is usually a simple matter of looking at the date of purchase and the date of injury. However, in this case, the plaintiff bought and used many individual single units of dangerous chemical hair relaxer products over the course of many years before her injury developed. 

The hair relaxer defendants argued that the court should treat the sale of all hair relaxer products to plaintiffs as one group of products and apply the date of the first sale of the product to all subsequent products.  The Supreme Court determined that the statute of repose does not bar a claim for strict product liability where one or more of the units in question were sold to an intended user more than ten years before she brought the action. 

Plaintiff’s hair relaxer claims will proceed against the manufacturers of all products used up to 10 years before her injury. The Supreme Court made the right decision in this case, and the decision will protect consumers who trust manufacturers of the products they use. 

Beasley Allen lawyers continue to investigate cases alleging harms from chemical hair relaxers, with Navan Ward serving on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee.

GLP1 Litigation Update: NAION And Blindness Injuries

A recent study published in JAMA Network Open has intensified scrutiny around GLP-1 receptor agonists, including Ozempic (semaglutide) and Mounjaro (tirzepatide). The cohort study analyzed over 1.5 million patient records and found that individuals prescribed semaglutide or tirzepatide had a significantly increased risk of developing nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION).  

NAION is a rare but typically permanent form of vision loss. Patients on these drugs were nearly twice as likely to be diagnosed with NAION compared to those on other antidiabetic medications.

Although NAION-related claims are currently excluded from the ongoing multidistrict litigation (MDL) concerning GLP-1 drugs, defendants recently requested to add them to the existing MDL.  Plaintiffs have also filed cases involving GLP1s and NAION in state court in New Jersey.  Plaintiffs have requested that a multi-county litigation (MCL) be set up in the New Jersey state court specifically for NAION cases.   

The study’s findings underscore the need for heightened clinical monitoring of optic nerve disorders in patients using GLP1s. NAION cases are still in their early stages of development.  Plaintiffs are continuing to work these cases up towards trial.  

Source: JAMA Network

Kratom And 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) – Recent FDA Enforcement News

As we have previously reported, Kratom is a plant material from Southeast Asia that produces opioid- and stimulant-like effects. Kratom can be consumed in many ways, including pills, capsules, powders, crushed and smoked, brewed as tea, or by chewing the raw leaves. 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) is a potent, opioid-like chemical found in trace amounts in the Kratom plant, Mitragyna speciosa. In recent years, public health officials have issued warnings about concentrated 7-OH products, which are often marketed misleadingly as natural Kratom. 

Now, the FDA is pushing to ban 7-OH entirely, calling it highly addictive and unregulated. Officials say the move is about preventing another opioid crisis, especially with products being sold in colorful packaging and flavors that appeal to young people. Last month, the FDA formally recommended classifying 7-OH as a controlled substance, placing it in the same category as opioids under federal law. The Drug Enforcement Administration will now review the recommendation and decide whether to schedule the chemical, which would ban its sale nationwide.

Additionally, the FDA is actively working to limit Kratom availability in the U.S. by warning consumers about its serious risks, including liver toxicity, seizures, substance use disorders, and, in some cases, death. The FDA is also taking action against companies selling unapproved Kratom products and collaborating with other federal agencies to restrict its importation and distribution. However, the agency faces significant challenges in regulating Kratom due to its shadowy and fragmented supply chain, which often involves unregistered entities operating through various channels, including online sales and small retail shops. 

Although the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration calls Kratom a “drug of concern,” it is not currently regulated as a controlled substance. On the state level, Alabama and several other states have banned the sale and possession of Kratom outright, while others have introduced legislation to significantly restrict the marketing and distribution of Kratom products.  Sadly, though, many states still allow the sale of Kratom at vape shops and convenience stores – a fact that has led many people to refer to it as “Gas Station Heroin.”

Beasley Allen lawyers are working diligently to combat the spread of this highly dangerous product, which is typically sold without any warnings or information concerning health risks, dosing instructions, serving sizes, the concentration of mitragynine and 7-OH in each serving, or the other active ingredients that manufacturers add to their Kratom products. 

The History Of The Tylenol Litigation

In September, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published information concerning a link between prenatal acetaminophen use and autism in children.  This report has sparked an important yet troubling conversation about the validity of the science behind the government’s statements.  

While this announcement by the government is new, the science backing these claims is certainly not.  There have been numerous studies over the last decade showing an increased risk of adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes from prenatal acetaminophen use.  These studies were performed by some of the top researchers in the field.  Most recently, in August, researchers at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai published a study with the same conclusions. That study also corrected many of the purported weaknesses in other prior studies. 

Scientific research has increasingly linked prenatal use of acetaminophen—including Tylenol—to higher risks of autism and ADHD in children. On September 22, 2025, the U.S. government confirmed the connection between prenatal Tylenol use and neurodevelopmental disorders. The following are key statistics cited by the government:

• Autism rates have surged 400% since 2000;

• Once 1 in 10,000, autism now affects 1 in 31 children nationwide — with even higher rates in some regions;

• Among boys in California, the rate is as high as 1 in 12; and 

• Studies cited by HHS show a 2–3x increased risk of autism and ADHD when acetaminophen disrupts fetal brain development.

The litigation involving these claims is not new. Neither is our firm’s involvement. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) consolidated acetaminophen/Tylenol cases to Judge Cote on October 5, 2022, notably almost three (3) years before the government’s announcement.  The MDL is currently under appeal in the Second Circuit.  

Beasley Allen lawyers continue to investigate cases involving prenatal exposure to acetaminophen who have subsequently been diagnosed with autism or ADHD. Roger Smith, a lawyer in our Mass Torts Section, serves as the MDL Chair of the Plaintiff’s Science and Expert Committee.  

Beasley Allen lawyers are at the forefront of this litigation, representing families nationwide. Our lawyers have secured billions in verdicts and settlements in complex pharmaceutical and product liability cases. The firm is committed to holding manufacturers accountable for failing to warn consumers of these risks. 

Kenvue Pushes Back On Tylenol-Autism Warning Petition

In fairness, we will give the position of Kenvue, manufacturer of Tylenol, on the litigation. The company has urged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to reject the citizen petition calling for warning labels on acetaminophen products about potential risks during pregnancy. As reported, the petition claims a link between acetaminophen use and neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism and ADHD. Kenvue responded to the petition by citing scientific research—over 150 studies spanning 50 years—that it says show no proven causal connection between the drug and such conditions.

Kenvue says that the FDA has consistently reviewed emerging data and found no basis for a warning. The company also argued that changing the label would be unlawful, saying it would interfere with the practice of medicine. 

Kenvue criticized the petition for conflating autism and ADHD, claiming it misrepresented scientific certainty and that it proposes changes to professional labeling for products that don’t carry such labels.

Obviously, Beasley Allen does not agree with the views of Kenvue and will continue with the ongoing litigation. But we felt it was only fair to set out the views opposed to our position as stated by Kenvue and their attorneys. 

Stay tuned!

TOXIC TORT LITIGATION

Beasley Allen Files Lawsuit Against Merck Over Cancer-Causing Exposure To Worker

Beasley Allen and Malone Law have filed a lawsuit on behalf of an Albany family in federal court against pharmaceutical company Merck & Co. It’s alleged in the complaint that toxic exposure from its former Flint River Plant led to brain cancer diagnoses in two sisters, Saville and Lilia Sullivan.

The plant, which manufactured drugs like Zocor and Prilosec, operated until its closure in 2007 and was demolished in 2011. Mrs. Colleen Sullivan, the girls’ mother, worked at the facility for 12 years and was pregnant with both daughters during her employment. Sixteen years later, both girls were diagnosed with different forms of pediatric brain cancer within three weeks of each other.

Saville, then a college student at the University of Alabama, initially went into remission, but she tragically passed away in October 2023 after her cancer returned and metastasized. Her estate is represented by Beasley Allen lawyers Parker Miller and Matt Griffith, along with Adam Malone from Malone Law.

The complaint accuses Merck of releasing a “toxic soup” of carcinogenic chemicals into the environment, including substances especially harmful to pregnant women and unborn children. Colleen Sullivan and her daughters were unknowingly exposed simply by Mrs. Sullivan going to work each day.

The lawsuit includes seven counts: negligence, premises liability, gross negligence/wantonness, wrongful death, estate claims, loss of consortium, and punitive damages. More chemical evidence may emerge as the case progresses through discovery.

Missouri Supreme Court Upholds $600 Million Roundup Cancer Verdict Against Bayer

Bayer AG must pay over $600 million in damages after the Missouri Supreme Court declined to hear its appeal in a landmark case linking its herbicide Roundup to cancer. The decision finalizes a Cole County jury verdict originally awarding $1.56 billion to four plaintiffs, later reduced to $611 million by Circuit Judge Daniel Green and upheld by the Western District Court of Appeals.

The Plaintiffs—Jimmy and Brenda Draeger of Missouri, Daniel Anderson of California, and Valorie Gunther of New York—were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after years of Roundup use. The jury found Bayer liable not only for failing to warn users but also for a design defect and negligence. Punitive damages were significantly reduced, but continue to accrue interest, pushing the total judgment above $700 million.

As we have previously reported, Bayer, which acquired Roundup’s original manufacturer, Monsanto, in 2018, maintains that federal law preempts state-based failure-to-warn claims and argues the compensatory awards should be limited to actual medical expenses. Reportedly, the company is considering a last-ditch appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, legal experts say success is unlikely.

Bayer has spent heavily on advertising campaigns portraying glyphosate—the active ingredient in Roundup—as safe and essential to agriculture. The company is also trying hard to get legislation at the federal and state levels to give it protection.

Matthew Clement, a lawyer who helped lead the case against Bayer, is seeking court orders to disclose Bayer’s public relations spending, contending that transparency is critical ahead of a new trial set for January 2026 involving four additional plaintiffs diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

It should be noted that Bayer has already paid approximately $11 billion to settle nearly 100,000 Roundup-related lawsuits, with 61,000 more pending. The company has discontinued glyphosate-based Roundup for residential use and is pursuing regulatory approval for a new herbicide across major global markets.

Attorney Clement says the litigation aims to inform the public and pressure Bayer to offer safer alternatives. He says: “If they have the technology and the means to make a safer product, that’s what we encourage them to do.”

Source: Missouri Independent

Paraquat Litigation Update: Court Order Highlights Tension Between Settlement Control And Attorney Advocacy

With more than 6,400 lawsuits pending in the Southern District of Illinois, the Paraquat litigation continues to press forward. In late September 2025, the court extended the stay on case-specific discovery until January 6, 2026, signaling that the focus remains squarely on settlement negotiations. In the midst of these developments, an unexpected controversy has emerged, one that underscores the fine balance between judicial oversight and plaintiffs’ advocacy.

Judge Orders Clarification from Prominent Attorney

On October 7, 2025, Chief U.S. District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel issued an order directing prominent plaintiffs’ attorney Aimee Wagstaff to clarify her intentions regarding a planned webinar about the proposed settlement. Judge Rosenstengel’s order reflects the court’s ongoing effort to maintain judicial economy and ensure coordinated communication during sensitive settlement discussions.

The Core of the Controversy

During the hearing on October 14, Judge Rosenstengel did not mince words, having said: “A lot of work went into this settlement, and I want to see it move forward without people trying to attack it.” The judge’s remarks highlight her commitment to preserving the integrity of the negotiations—months of coordination among leadership counsel, defendants, and the court.

Defending her position, Attorney Wagstaff, who is experienced and highly respected, stated that her goal was transparency, not disruption. She explained that many plaintiffs remain uncertain about how the settlement’s proof and eligibility requirements might affect their claims, and that open communication among attorneys is essential to ensuring informed decision-making.

Judicial Oversight vs. Zealous Advocacy

This dispute captures one of the enduring tensions in mass tort litigation: balancing judicial efficiency with the individual lawyer’s duty to advocate for clients. Judge Rosenstengel has the responsibility to manage thousands of cases efficiently while preserving fairness across the board. All lawyers are bound by ethical obligations to ensure that each client understands the risks and benefits of any settlement offer. We must all understand that both sides, ultimately, are working toward the same goal—just and equitable resolution, but from different vantage points.

Why It Matters

The Paraquat litigation has become a case study in how courts handle large-scale settlements involving thousands of plaintiffs. It raises critical questions for the legal community:

• How far can courts go in managing communications among plaintiffs’ counsel?

• When does oversight cross into control?

• And how can transparency coexist with the need for order in sprawling MDLs?

With thousands of plaintiffs waiting and the court pushing for resolution, the coming months will be pivotal. The Paraquat MDL remains not only a significant legal battle, but also a window into the evolving dynamics of leadership, communication, and control in complex litigation.

Source: The New Ledge

Purdue Pharma’s Bankruptcy Plan Gains 99% Creditor Approval For Pending Settlement

Purdue Pharma is still using bankruptcy in the ongoing litigation. The company says it has overwhelming support—over 99% approval—from voting creditors for its revised Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan. The proposal, which follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of Purdue’s original plan in 2024, aims to resolve civil claims tied to the company’s role in the opioid epidemic. If confirmed, the plan could deliver more than $7 billion to creditors, including up to $850 million for individual claimants.

Key elements of the settlement include a $6.5 billion contribution from the Sackler family, an initial $1.5 billion payment upon plan activation, and the creation of Knoa Pharma to provide opioid addiction treatments. Creditors will also have the option to settle their own claims against the Sacklers. A confirmation hearing is scheduled for this month.

The official committee of unsecured creditors is represented by Justin R. Alberto and Anthony De Leo of Cole Schotz PC.

The ad hoc committee is represented by Kenneth H. Eckstein, Rachael Ringer and David E. Blabey Jr. of Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, David J. Molton of Brown Rudnick LLP, Kami E. Quinn of Gilbert LLP and Melanie L. Cyganowski of Otterbourg PC.

Beasley Allen lawyers, led by Rhon Jones, Jeff Price, Matt Griffith, Elliot Bienenfeld, Gavin King, David Diab, and Elizabeth Walden, are closely monitoring the bankruptcy matter. 

The case is In re: Purdue Pharma LP et al., case number 7:19-bk-23649, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

Source: Law360

Judges Back Georgia County’s Use Of Outside Attorneys In Opioid Suit

The Georgia Court of Appeals has unanimously upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Publix Supermarkets challenging Cobb County’s use of outside counsel in opioid litigation. The court ruled that Publix failed to demonstrate any violation of public rights, echoing its earlier decision in a nearly identical case involving Rockdale County.

Publix had argued that Cobb County’s agreement to pay a 25% contingency fee to private law firms violated Georgia’s constitution and public policy. However, the court found no legal basis for Publix’s claims, noting that the company did not object to the county’s use of private attorneys in general and failed to address concerns about judicial comity between state and federal courts.

The underlying opioid case, originally filed by Cobb County in 2018, was merged into a federal multidistrict litigation in Ohio. Although a trial was scheduled for 2025, the parties reached a confidential settlement in July.

Publix’s separate lawsuit against Cobb County, filed in 2023, was dismissed under Georgia’s anti-SLAPP statute, with the trial court finding the county’s legal action served the public interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed that decision, stating Publix had not established an actual controversy warranting judicial relief.

The case is Publix Supermarkets Inc. v. Cobb County, case number A25A1018, in the Georgia Court of Appeals.

Source: Law360

CONSUMER CORNER

Food Contamination Crisis: Deadly Listeria Outbreak

A recent nationwide recall of nearly 245,000 pounds of pre-cooked pasta has reignited concerns over food safety and the devastating consequences of contamination. The outbreak, linked to Listeria monocytogenes, has already claimed four lives and sickened over 20 individuals across multiple states.

The contaminated pasta products, manufactured by Nate’s Fine Foods and distributed by FreshRealm, were sold under various brands at major retailers, including Walmart, Kroger, Trader Joe’s, and Sprouts Farmers Market. These ready-to-eat meals were available from late August through early October, and consumers are urged to check their refrigerators and freezers for affected items.

What You Need to Know About Listeria

Listeria monocytogenes is a dangerous bacterium that can cause severe illness, especially in pregnant women, newborns, older adults, and individuals with weakened immune systems. Symptoms include fever, muscle aches, nausea, and in severe cases, meningitis or death. The CDC and FDA continue to investigate the outbreak and have expanded the list of recalled products.

Fighting For Foodborne Illness Victims

Beasley Allen is deeply committed to advocating for individuals and families impacted by food contamination. Our firm has successfully represented clients in cases involving serious illness and injury caused by unsafe food products. We recently resolved a case involving multiple children who became ill after being exposed to E. coli from contaminated food.

Beasley Allen lawyers have handled numerous cases in the past, particularly those involving:

• Serious or catastrophic injuries;
• Fatalities; and
• Multiple claimants with confirmed illness.

If you or a loved one has been affected by contaminated pasta or any other unsafe food product, you can reach out to our firm for help. We have an experienced team of lawyers who have navigated complex food safety litigation for years and have held negligent parties accountable.

Protecting Your Rights and Health

Foodborne illness can have life-altering consequences. Legal action not only helps victims recover damages—it also drives accountability and helps to improve safety standards across the food industry. We believe every consumer deserves protection from preventable harm. Some of the conduct by the corporate world in the food care industry is actually worse than just being negligent. 

THE STRUCTURE OF BEASLEY ALLEN AND CASES HANDLED BY THE FIRM

The Structure Of Beasley Allen Is Designed To Work For Clients 

Beasley Allen is organized in a structure that benefits the clients we represent. The firm operates in five separate sections: four litigation sections and one administrative section. The separate litigation sections concept has worked extremely well. It has definitely benefited Beasley Allen clients. Our lawyers have also brought about needed national changes in product and workplace safety.  

Since our beginning over 45 years ago, Beasley Allen lawyers have handled all sorts of civil litigation for plaintiffs. The Administrative Section supports the four Litigation Sections that could be described as “mini-firms” within Beasley Allen. Those four Litigation Sections are the Mass Torts Section, the Toxic Torts Section, the Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, and the Personal Injury & Products Liability Section.  

Each litigation section has a team of lawyers and support staff working closely together, creating efficiency and case proficiency within each section. Successful section performance leads to better firm performance overall, allowing us to expand our resources and enabling firm growth. We believe our approach has allowed us to help more of those who need it most, year after year.  

The Personal Injury & Products Liability Section 

Cole Portis heads our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section with Sloan Downes serving as the Director of the Section. The section handles Auto Accidents, Auto Products, Aviation Accidents, Defective Tires, Negligent Security, On-the-Job Injuries, Premises Liability and Truck Accident cases.  There are 25 lawyers in the Section.

The Mass Torts Section 

Andy Birchfield heads our Mass Torts Section. Melissa Prickett serves as the Section’s Director. With over 50 years of combined legal experience, Andy and Melissa lead the firm’s largest section in medical devices, medication, and other practice areas. The section currently handles cases involving Acetaminophen, Hair Relaxers, Kratom, NEC Baby Formula, Ozempic, Social Media, Predatory Gaming, Video Game Addiction, Ultra-Processed Foods, Dupixent, Depo-Provera and Talcum Powder. There are 40 lawyers in the Section.

The Toxic Torts Section 

Rhon Jones leads our firm’s Toxic Torts Section with Section Director Tracie Harrison’s assistance. The section focuses on toxic exposure cases. Recent cases involve Camp Lejeune Water Contamination and Paraquat.  There are 19 lawyers in the Section.

The Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section 

Dee Miles is the Section Head of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section. Michelle Fulmer is the Director of the Section. The section currently handles cases involving Business Litigation, Class Action, Consumer Protection, Social Media, Securities cases, Civil & Human Rights, Employment Law and Whistleblower cases. There are 16 lawyers in the Section.

The Administrative Section 

The Administrative Section consists of several departments: Accounting, Operations, Human Resources (HR), Information Technology (IT), and Marketing. Michelle Parks serves as the Director of Accounting, while Michelle Fulmer is the Director of Operations. Kimberly Youngblood holds the position of Executive Director, overseeing HR, IT, and Marketing. 

Since we reorganized the firm’s structure in 1998, Beasley Allen’s record speaks for itself. The revised structure – without any doubt – has contributed greatly to our firm’s success. Section Heads and Directors have been able to concentrate on the volume of cases in their section. They quickly recognize when additional resources are needed.  

Lawyers have been able to focus on cases within their sections. This has allowed them to achieve favorable results. There are major differences in each section, both as to the law, regulations and industry requirements.  

The efficiency and teamwork generated by the sections concept has resulted in our firm being recognized as one of the best litigation firms in the country. This has been for the benefit of the folks we represented.  

The Latest Look At Case Activity At Beasley Allen

Our BeasleyAllen.com website provides the latest information on the current case activity at Beasley Allen. The list can be found on our homepage, the top navigation, or the practices page of the website (BeasleyAllen.com/Practices/). The following are the current case activity listings for the Beasley Allen Litigation Sections.  

Practices

• Business Litigation 
• Civil & Human Rights 
• Class Actions 
• Consumer Protection 
• Employment Law 
• Medical Devices 
• Medication 
• Personal Injury 
• Product Liability 
• Toxic Exposure 
• Whistleblower Litigation 

Cases 

The cases in the categories listed below are handled by lawyers in the appropriate Litigation Section at Beasley Allen. The list can be found on our homepage, on the top navigation, or on the Cases page of our website (BeasleyAllen.com/Recent-Cases/).

• Acetaminophen 
• Auto Accidents 
• Auto Defect Class Actions
• Auto Products 
• Aviation Accidents 
• Camp Lejeune  
• Defective Tires 
• Depo-Provera 
• Dupixent
• Hair Relaxers 
• Kratom 
• NEC Baby Formula 
• Negligent Security  
• On-the-Job-Injuries 
• Ozempic 
• Paraquat 
• Predatory Gaming
• Premises Liability
• Social Media  
• Talcum Powder 
• Truck Accidents  
• Ultra-Processed Foods 
• Video Game Addiction 

We will give a brief explanation below for each of the listed categories:

• Acetaminophen
  Beasley Allen lawyers handle cases of mothers who took acetaminophen while pregnant and gave birth to a child later diagnosed with autism or ADHD. Cases also include children treated with the drug during the first 18 months of life who developed autism or ADHD. 
• Auto Accidents
  Our lawyers handle life-altering and deadly automobile accident cases caused by defective products and driver negligence. Crashes may involve single vehicles, multiple vehicles, motorcycles, recreational vehicles, transit vehicles or trucks. 
• Auto Defect Class Actions
  Our team pursues auto manufacturers and their suppliers for vehicle defects that create safety risks for occupants and others on the road. We seek to correct defects not addressed by recalls or warranty extensions through class action litigation.
• Auto Products
  Our team will meticulously investigate your accident, examine vehicles for defects or product liability issues, identify responsible parties, file lawsuits, manage legal documents, and strive to maximize your compensation.
• Aviation Accidents
  Lawyers investigate aviation accidents resulting from mechanical failures, human error and other causes. Crashes injure hundreds, sometimes thousands, of victims onboard aircraft and on the ground every year.
• Camp Lejeune 
  Our firm handles cases of victims exposed to contaminated water supplies at U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune between 1953 and 1987. Exposure to toxic water caused serious injuries, including cancer, adult leukemia, Parkinson’s disease, major cardiac birth defects and others.
• Defective Tires
  Defective tires can lead to automobile accidents resulting in injury or even death. Beasley Allen lawyers investigate these accidents caused by blowouts, tread separation and other tire failures. 
• Depo-Provera
  We are investigating cases for individuals who were given Depo-Provera shots for at least 1 year and developed cerebral or spinal meningiomas.
• Dupixent
  We are investigating the link between Dupixent and Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma (CTCL)— a group of rare blood cancers that affects the largest organ in your body — your skin.
• Hair Relaxers
  Our lawyers handle cases for women injured by toxic chemicals in hair relaxers. Women who frequently use hair relaxers may develop uterine cancer, endometriosis, uterine fibroids or breast cancer.
• Kratom
  Beasley Allen is investigating cases of serious adverse effects experienced by individuals who have consumed products containing Kratom.
• NEC Baby Formula
  Our firm investigates cases of premature babies who developed necrotizing enterocolitis after consuming infant formulas manufactured by brands like Enfamil and Similac. Necrotizing enterocolitis is an intestinal disease that can lead to long-term complications and even death.
• Negligent Security 
  Establishment owners and managers are responsible for maintaining safe premises. When someone is injured or killed as a result of negligent security, Beasley Allen lawyers hold owners and managers accountable.
• On-the-Job-Injuries
  We investigate workers’ compensation cases, often finding that defective industrial products are to blame for workers’ injuries or deaths. Quite often, the incident results in a product liability case. Industrial products include manufacturing, farming, construction or other types of equipment.
• Ozempic
  We investigate cases of gastroparesis, intestinal obstruction, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism related to the use of diabetes and weight loss drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro.
• Paraquat
  Our firm handles cases for victims injured by paraquat, a popular herbicide linked to Parkinson’s Disease that has been banned or partially banned in at least 92 countries. Paraquat remains legal in the U.S., risking the health and safety of workers on over 2 million U.S. farms.
• Predatory Gaming
  Online gaming has become one of the most popular forms of entertainment for children and teens. We are investigating claims involving child exploitation in gaming and predatory design that puts profits over children’s safety.
•  Premises Liability
  We investigate cases every day where negligence from property owners or occupiers has created dangerous conditions. Catastrophic premises cases involve serious injuries that occur on someone else’s property. These cases
• Social Media 
  Our youth are facing a mental health crisis caused by social media addiction. Beasley Allen advocates for these youth who have suffered harms, including anxiety, depression, eating disorders, body dysmorphia, ADD/ADHD, self-harm and suicide.
• Talcum Powder
  Beasley Allen handles cases for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer after regular use of talcum powder. For decades, companies like Johnson & Johnson knew that talcum powder might cause cancer but failed to warn consumers. 
• Truck Accidents 
  Our firm handles accident cases involving tractor-trailers, commercial vehicles and other large trucks. These cases often involve multiple, well-funded defendants and complex insurance issues.
• Ultra-Processed Foods
  We are actively investigating cases where ultra-processed foods are linked to type 2 diabetes and NAFLD, especially in individuals diagnosed before age 18.
• Video Game Addiction 
  We are investigating cases of video game addiction caused by companies intentionally designing games to be highly addictive, especially for minors, using psychological tactics.

Resources to Help Your Practice

The leadership team at Beasley Allen understands the importance of sharing resources and collaborating with our fellow trial lawyers throughout the country. We are committed to investing in resources that can help our other trial lawyers in their work. We have compiled a list of our most popular resources for those seeking to work with us or seeking information to help their law firm with a case. 

Co-Counsel E-Newsletter 

Beasley Allen sends out a Co-Counsel E-Newsletter specifically tailored with lawyers in mind. It features case updates, highlights key victories achieved for our clients, and informs readers about the firm’s latest resources. You can get it online by visiting our website, BeasleyAllen.com, and clicking the Articles link. 

Recalls Update 

We try our best to stay current on the latest significant consumer recalls. Contact our JLB Report Team at [email protected] if you have any questions or believe we may need to include a recall. 

The Jere Beasley Report 

We also consider The Jere Beasley Report a service to lawyers and the general public. We provide the Report at no cost monthly. Visit our website, BeasleyAllen.com and click the Articles link. 

TRIAL TIPS FOR LAWYERS

Using Technology To Demystify Complex Evidence

In today’s courtroom, clarity is king. Jurors are no longer passive recipients of information—they expect to understand complex evidence as clearly as they would a news headline or a product demo. In this issue, Matt Griffith, a lawyer in our Toxic Torts Section, explores how strategic use of technology can transform dense, technical testimony into compelling, digestible visuals. Drawing from real-world experience, Matt offers practical guidance for attorneys seeking to bridge the gap between expert knowledge and juror comprehension. His message is clear: when technology is used with intention and restraint, it becomes a powerful ally in the pursuit of justice.

Using Technology to Demystify Complex Evidence

Today, jurors expect visual clarity when confronted with complex evidence and testimony. An attorney who masters technology to simplify complex evidence will have a distinct advantage.

Start with the end in mind. 

Before investing in animations or 3D models, ask: What is the single most important concept the jury needs to understand? Technology should illuminate that core issue, not overwhelm with bells and whistles. In a recent case, rather than presenting a detailed molecular animation, we used a simple side-by-side comparison showing two different compounds. The jury grasped it immediately.

Make experts co-creators, not afterthoughts. 

Involve your scientific witnesses in developing demonstratives early. They can identify which visual representations accurately depict the science while remaining understandable to the jury. This collaboration also ensures your expert can confidently explain the demonstratives during trial.

Test everything with non-experts. 

Your paralegal, spouse, or teenage child can make an excellent focus group. If they can’t explain the complex concept back to you after viewing your presentation, revise it. Jurors can’t tell you they’re confused; they will simply return a verdict against your client.

Consider low-tech alternatives. 

Sometimes, a well-designed poster board with magnetic pieces that the expert can manipulate beats a slick animation. I’ve found that a simple flip chart can be very persuasive as well. Physical interaction creates memorable moments and allows an expert to pause, emphasize, and respond to jurors’ body language.

The goal shouldn’t be to dazzle jurors with technology, but to give them the tools they need to become advocates for your client during deliberations. When they can explain your complex case to each other, you’ve succeeded.

Matt’s article is a timely reminder that technology in the courtroom isn’t about spectacle—it’s about strategy. His insights reflect the kind of thoughtful advocacy that defines the commitment to justice that drives our work every day. 

Beasley Allen Lawyer And Employee Spotlights

Rylee Buzbee

We congratulate Rylee Buzbee on becoming one of our newest Associates in the Toxic Torts Section. Rylee graduated from the University of West Florida in 2022, earning her degree in Legal Studies with a minor in Juvenile Justice. She received her Juris Doctor from Faulkner University’s Thomas Goode Jones School of Law in 2025. 

While at West Florida, Rylee was a founding member of Argos’ Edible Campus, a program dedicated to fighting food insecurity, and participated in the Inside-Out Program, which brought incarcerated and non-incarcerated students together to learn about social justice issues. She was also an orientation leader and Vice Chair of the Student Government Association’s Budget and Allocations Committee. 

 At Jones School of Law, Rylee continued her commitment to advocacy and leadership as Chair of the Board of Advocates, Dean Fellow, and Jones Public Interest Law Foundation member. She also competed on the Trial Advocacy Competition team, participating in mock trial competitions nationwide. 

Rylee’s inspiration to pursue law stems from her upbringing in Bayou La Batre, Alabama, where she witnessed the lasting impact of the BP oil spill on her community. That experience and her passion for helping others led her to focus on environmental law and juvenile justice, which she remains deeply committed to.  

Outside of work, Rylee volunteers with the Montgomery Volunteer Lawyers Program, enjoys spending time with family and friends, attending church, and playing pickleball with loved ones. She is also a proud member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) and First Assembly of God in Montgomery, AL.

We welcome Rylee to the Beasley Allen team and look forward to the energy, compassion, and dedication she brings with her as she joins the firm.

Patrick Cooper

Patrick Cooper has been a medical advisor in our Toxic Torts Section at Beasley Allen for over two years. In this role, Patrick leverages a strong medical background to assist the team by reviewing and interpreting medical records, summarizing key findings, and identifying critical clinical details. Patrick finds fulfillment in making a meaningful difference for the clients Beasley Allen serves, while working alongside a fantastic team he shares. 

Originally from the Midwest, Patrick shares that he comes from a large, lively family, including seven nieces who keep life exciting. Weekends are often spent supporting their school and community activities, and with pumpkin season in full swing, family outings to the pumpkin farm are a highlight. Patrick has also begun exploring family history, building a family tree as a rewarding personal project. 

With a background as a registered nurse, Patrick has worked with people from many walks of life, finding the experience gratifying. Patrick enjoys traveling, hiking, camping, and fishing outdoors in his spare time. 

Patrick says what he likes most about working at Beasley Allen “is the collaborative spirit in serving clients and the supportive, family atmosphere shared among colleagues.” He adds, “Knowing the team is making a real difference for those who need it most is incredibly rewarding.”

We are fortunate to have Patrick with the firm in an important position. He is a definite asset.

Cade Crow

We congratulate Cade Crow on becoming one of our newest Associates in our Mass Torts Section. Cade earned his undergraduate degree from the University of Alabama and his Juris Doctor from Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law. At Cumberland, he served as president of the Alabama Student Bar Association and was a member of the Cumberland Development Advisory Board, where he mentored first-year students and helped guide them through the challenges of law school.

Cade’s inspiration to pursue law began in childhood, watching his dad, Mike, advocate for a client injured in a car accident. That moment, along with the values instilled by his parents to help those who cannot help themselves, laid the foundation for his legal career, Cade shares. He is passionate about mass torts, specifically cases involving medications, medical devices, and video games.  

Cade credits his hard work, leadership, and grit as his greatest strengths—qualities shaped by mentors like Beasley Allen lawyer Greg Allen and his own experiences overcoming adversity.  Cade says he is grateful to have clerked in all four sections at Beasley Allen during law school, gaining a broad perspective on the law and a deep appreciation for mentorship.

Outside the office, Cade is active in the community through the Brantwood Children’s Home Junior Board, where he helps organize fundraising events like their annual kickball tournament. He enjoys waterfowl and upland bird hunting, training Labrador retrievers, cheering on the Alabama Crimson Tide, spending time at Lake Martin, and relaxing with friends and family.

We welcome Cade to the firm and look forward to the dedication, energy, and hard work he brings with him. We are blessed to have Cade with us. 

Hudson Foy

We congratulate Hudson Foy on becoming one of the new Associates in our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section. He will be in the Atlanta office.  Hudson graduated from the University of Dayton in 2021 and earned his Juris Doctor from Emory University School of Law in 2025. While at Emory, Hudson was actively involved in the Turner Environmental Law Clinic and was a member of the Emory Corporate Governance and Accountability Review Journal for two years.

Hudson says his inspiration to pursue law stems from a desire to make a meaningful impact in his community by helping people during times of need. Coming from a family of lawyers, Hudson witnessed early on how fulfilling and impactful a legal career can be when pursued with purpose and compassion.  

Hudson is especially passionate about personal injury law; a calling solidified during his two summers clerking at Beasley Allen. At the firm, he saw firsthand the profound effect an injury can have on individuals and families—and he knew he wanted to be part of helping clients navigate those difficult moments.  

Outside of work, Hudson enjoys spending time at Lake Lanier, biking on the Beltline, and golfing. His service commitment and drive to advocate for others make him valuable to the firm.

We welcome Hudson to Beasley Allen and look forward to his work in our Atlanta office. He, too, brings energy, compassion, and dedication to the firm. We are fortunate to have Hudson with us. 

Kim Gibson

Kim Gibson has been a valued member of the Beasley Allen team for two years as of September. As an Administrative Assistant in the firm’s Toxic Torts Section, Kim describes her role as “a little bit of anything,” assisting Rhon Jones, head of the Toxic Torts Section, and Tracie Harrison, the Section’s director. Kim says she steps in wherever needed. Kim shares her appreciation for working with such a wonderful group and values the firm’s genuine care for clients and employees. She says the supportive environment has made it easy for her to build meaningful friendships and look forward to connecting with even more amazing people.

Outside of work, Kim enjoys a close-knit family life. She and her spouse, DJ, have been married for six years and serve on their subdivision’s HOA Board, actively engaging in their community. Kim’s grandmother lives nearby in Montgomery, allowing for cherished time together, especially cooking. Kim’s mother, though still residing in Florida, visits Montgomery often, keeping family ties strong. In her spare time, Kim enjoys reading, painting, swimming, playing cards or board games, and cooking with her family.

When asked what Kim likes best about working at Beasley Allen, she says:
“Knowing that I am working for a firm where clients and employees are genuinely valued and the work environment has made it easy to build meaningful friendships. I’m excited for the continued opportunity to connect with even more amazing people.” 

We are blessed to have Kim, a hard-working, dedicated employee, with the firm. 

Teresa Reid

After two decades with Beasley Allen, Teresa Reid continues to have a meaningful impact as a clerical assistant in the Mass Torts Section. In her role, Teresa prepares client request letters and ensures referring attorneys and co-counsels receive timely updates, helping keep critical processes on track.  She also assists with special projects and assignments within the section as needed.

Raised in Nashville as the youngest of four children, Teresa met her husband, Alan, at Western Kentucky University. They have been married for 44 years and are proud parents of one daughter and two granddaughters, who are active in volleyball and gymnastics. Teresa is especially grateful to live in the same town as her daughter and granddaughters, while their extended family resides in other states.  Outside of work, Teresa enjoys reading, traveling, spending time with family and friends, and relaxing at the beach. She is also active in her church community, where her husband is a bi-vocational pastor.

Teresa says what she values most about working at Beasley Allen is the flexibility of remote work, which allows her to balance her professional and family life. She also appreciates Beasley Allen’s strong reputation and the positive feedback she hears from the community about the firm’s contributions and representation. 

We are blessed to have Teresa, another hard-working, dedicated employee, with the firm. She is a definite asset. 

Sarah Grace Strength

We are pleased to congratulate Sarah Grace Strength on becoming one of our newest Associates in our Toxic Torts Section. Sarah Grace graduated from the University of Alabama in 2022 and earned her Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law earlier this year. During law school, she competed on Cumberland’s National Trial Team, gaining invaluable courtroom experience and confidence. She also served as the Public Relations Chair for the Trial Advocacy Board and as an admissions ambassador, helping prospective students navigate their law school journey.

Sara Grace says her inspiration to pursue law stems from her father, an attorney, whose dedication and compassion left a lasting impression. Witnessing firsthand her father’s impact on clients during difficult times motivated Sarah Grace to follow in his footsteps and advocate for those in need.  Sarah Grace is passionate about plaintiff representation, especially in the area of toxic tort and environmental litigation. She is driven by the opportunity to fight for justice on behalf of individuals and communities harmed through no fault of their own.

Sarah Grace says what she enjoys most about her work is the collaborative spirit at Beasley Allen. She values the team approach to every case, believing it strengthens her skills and the representation provided to clients. Outside of work, Sarah Grace enjoys spending time with her family, friends, and her French Bulldog. Her hobbies include golfing, needlepointing, and cheering on the Alabama Crimson Tide. 

Sarah Grace is a follower of Jesus Christ. She says her faith plays a central role in how she approaches the practice of law.

We welcome Sarah Grace to the Beasley Allen team and look forward to her dedication and good work in the firm. We are blessed to have Sarah Grace with us. 

CLOSING OBSERVATIONS

Larry Golston Appointed Interim Co-Lead Counsel In AFLAC Data Breach Class Action

Larry Golston has been appointed by U.S. District Judge Clay Land as one of the interim Co-lead Counsels in the consolidated class action litigation stemming from the AFLAC data breach. The case, filed in Columbus, Georgia—home to AFLAC’s headquarters—marks a significant step in the fight for justice on behalf of thousands of affected policyholders.

A Major Milestone in a High-Stakes Case

The litigation follows a major cybersecurity incident in June 2025, when hackers reportedly accessed AFLAC’s internal systems, potentially compromising sensitive personal and health information of customers, employees, and agents. The breach has raised serious concerns about data protection practices within one of the nation’s largest supplemental insurance providers.

Larry Golston, a principal at Beasley Allen, is a talented trial lawyer who has had tremendous success in his practice. Larry joins a leadership team tasked with steering this complex litigation. His appointment reflects not only his deep experience in data privacy law but also his proven track record in holding corporations accountable for failing to safeguard consumer information.

Beasley Allen’s Commitment to Consumer Protection

Beasley Allen is no stranger to high-profile data breach cases. The firm—led by seasoned litigators like Dee Miles, Larry Golston, and Leon Hampton—has previously taken on giants like AT&T, Home Depot, and Target. Their latest class action against AFLAC alleges negligence, breach of contract, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment.

The firm’s goal is clear: to secure meaningful recovery for all AFLAC policyholders impacted by the breach. With Larry now serving as interim Co-lead Counsel, plaintiffs can be confident that their interests are being represented by one of the most respected voices in consumer protection litigation.

What’s Next?

The case is still in its early stages, with investigations ongoing and affected individuals being notified. Meanwhile, Beasley Allen continues to encourage anyone who believes their data may have been compromised to come forward and explore their legal options.

Conclusion

Congratulations to Larry on this important appointment!

FAVORITE BIBLE VERSES

Teresa Reid, one of our staff employees who is being featured this month, shares her favorite Bible verses with us. Teresa offers two of her favorite verses. The first is what she calls her “go to” verse in daily and life decisions.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not trust in your own understanding. 6 Agree with Him in all your ways, and He will make your paths straight. Proverbs 3:5-6

The second verse reminds her that Jesus will make ALL things new one day-a glorious reason to be of good cheer.

I have told you these things so you may have peace in Me. In the world you will have much trouble. But take hope! I have power over the world!” John 16:33

MONTHLY REMINDERS

We continue to include this section of “reminders” in the Report. That’s because we believe each of the reminders is very important. The reminders are from key individuals and are for all of us at Beasley Allen. The reminders are to be applied in the workplace, in our social life, and at home. In addition to all of us at Beasley Allen, we send these reminders to all who get the Report each month. All persons in a leadership role, including those persons in government at every level, will benefit by reading the quotes and applying the lessons learned in their daily lives.  

If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 

2 Chronicles 7:14

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Edmund Burke

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must take it because his conscience tells him it is right.

The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.

Martin Luther King, Jr. 

Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, and help redeem the soul of America.

Rep. John Lewis speaking on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, on March 1, 2020

Ours is not the struggle of one day, one week, or one year. Ours is not the struggle of one judicial appointment or presidential term. Ours is the struggle of a lifetime, or maybe even many lifetimes, and each one of us in every generation must do our part.

Rep. John Lewis on movement-building in Across That Bridge: A Vision for Change and the Future of America

The opposite of poverty is not wealth; the opposite of poverty is justice.

Bryan Stevenson, 2019

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country….corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.

U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 

PARTING WORDS

I continue to pray for our country. It’s critically important for our Nation that the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the judicial system be supported by the American people regardless of their political affiliation. We must all recognize that a divided Nation cannot stand! Currently, the United States of America is as divided as I have ever seen it during my lifetime. We all have a duty to help replace that division with unity. My prayer is for that to happen and very soon. 

God Bless America!

To access this publication online, update an address, 
or to contact us about this publication, please
visit BeasleyAllen.com.

This is an advertisement.