Legal Blog of Attorney Greg Curry

A class action lawsuit has been filed in California federal court against Nestle Purina PetCare Company over its Beneful brand of dog food. The lawsuit claims that the dog food contains possibly poisonous substances such as propylene glycol and mycotoxins, which have made dogs very ill (internal bleeding, liver damage, dehydration) or have caused their deaths. Propylene glycol, for instance, is used  in some automotive antifreezes. The lawsuit claims that Purina has received 3,000 or more complaints  about the harmful effects of the Beneful brand. In fact, the website consumeraffairs.com  lists numerous complaints about the dog food. The lawsuit asserts claims for negligence, misrepresentation, products liability, and unfair business practices, and seeks more than $5 million in damages, plus costs and fees.

News 12 had a story  that a woman's house was severely damaged by fire caused by her dryer. She had homeowner's insurance, but when she put in a claim for the fire damage, the claim was denied because the insurance company said she had a pit bull, and the insurance company doesn't cover homes with pit bulls. The story gets even stranger because there is apparently a letter with her signature saying she doesn't have any pets. The homeowner says she didn't sign the letter. Which, if true, could be bad ( possible fraud by the broker). This is the area of law known as insurance coverage. It is based on the idea (in my opinion) that insurance companies want you to pay your high monthly premiums, but when you file a claim, they will look for any excuse to deny it. Do insurance companies have an interest in not covering homes with pit bulls in them? Yes, simply as a consideration of risk--based on the reputation of pit bulls, that they can be aggressive and may be mo...

A couple weeks ago, Steve Rosen, columnist with the Kansas City Star, wrote about his most recent experience with debt collectors. Apparently Mr. Rosen's name is similar to that of another person who is in debt to numerous companies. A collector somehow found out Mr. Rosen's son's cellphone number and called the son, trying to find the whereabouts of the father. Mr. Rosen was not happy. He called the collection company the next day and advised that they had the wrong guy. This is what collectors do. They are relentless and are paid to be relentless and will use public and maybe not-so-public records to contact anyone associated with you. But what they can do, and when they can do it, are regulated by laws such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. And if they break those laws, you might be able to sue them, get $1,000 in compensation, and have your attorneys' fees paid.

In the Internet age, many court filings can be accessed and read by just about anyone. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/23/us/lawsuits-lurid-details-draw-an-online-crowd.html?_r=0