Photo of Rachel Paulus

Rachel Paulus

Rachel has extensive experience representing manufacturers against claims of design defect, manufacturing defect and warning defect. Rachel has served on the national counsel team for one of the nation’s largest Mobile Elevated Work Platform (MEWP) manufacturers. Through her practice, she has become extensively familiar with Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OHSA), American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) standards. In addition to her experience representing manufacturers in products claims, Rachel also represents manufacturers in asbestos litigation.

Understanding the evolving themes and trends presented in product-based claims, Rachel also advises clients on product safety and warnings language with an eye toward minimizing legal risk. As a former summer associate at a Fortune 500 corporation, she has experience participating in product safety meetings and providing insights on risk mitigation.

Rachel began her legal career in-house, a background that has molded her approach to every case. She’s seen firsthand the level of passion engineers have for the products they develop, and she understands the care with which manufacturers approach the intersection of safety and innovation. She is also cognizant of the various internal factors that play into product development and litigation strategies, as well as the necessity of knowing a client’s industry, business and products inside and out. Rachel always aims to learn as much as possible about each client, with the understanding that a client’s goals and vision of success may differ with each case.

In recent years, numerous businesses have successfully enforced broad arbitration clauses, particularly those embedded in terms and conditions of online service agreements. We previously discussed a noteworthy example from a recent New Jersey appeals panel decision.1 The underlying cause of action in that case stemmed from a motor vehicle collision that occurred while plaintiff was a passenger in a ride share vehicle. The court sent the dispute to arbitration, enforcing an arbitration clause that was included in an the rideshare company’s food-delivery agreement that plaintiff’s daughter had agreed to when ordering food. Although an entirely different set of facts, the arbitration clause contained in the food delivery service agreement was deemed applicable to the claims of a passenger in a rideshare vehicle.2 This is just one recent example of how defendant corporations have succeeded in enforcing ostensibly unrelated arbitration clauses to a spectrum of tangential claims. Indeed, arbitration provisions have proven remarkably effective across a wide spectrum of legal matters, including personal injury claims, discrimination suits, and potentially even antitrust cases. Courts have shown a broad willingness to generally enforce arbitration clauses, including those included in “clickwrap” agreements, which require users to agree to terms and conditions before using a website, completing a software installation, or making an online purchase, that subject consumers to arbitration provisions through everyday digital services.

On December 21, 2024, Governor Kathy Hochul of New York vetoed, for a third time, the Grieving Families Act (“Act”), a significant bipartisan legislative proposal in New York aimed at reforming the state’s wrongful death statute, which has remained largely unchanged since 1847. The Act’s provisions, including expanding recoverable damages, extending the statute of limitations, and broadening the definition of beneficiaries, have significant implications on civil law in New York, including asbestos litigation.