Case Summaries
Insurance Law
Property Law & Real Estate
Contracts
Corporation & Enterprise Law
Insurance Law
[11/05]
General Star Nat. Ins. Co. v. Universal Fabricators, Inc.
In an action claiming that defendant insurer was bound by the terms of an excess insurance policy it had issued to contribute to the satisfaction of a state-court judgment of liability in a personal injury action against two entities for whom the insured had been a contractor, summary judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where the district court erred in deciding that the state-court judgment established legal liability against the insured.
[10/30]
World Harvest Church, Inc. v. GuideOne Mut. Ins. Co.
In an action against an insurer claiming that the insurer was estopped from contesting that a judgment against plaintiff was covered by the policy, the court of appeals certified the following questions to the Georgia Supreme Court: 1) does an insurer effectively reserve its right to deny coverage if it informs the insured that it does "not see coverage," after the insured had received a written reservation of rights from the insurer's sister company in a similar lawsuit in another jurisdiction, or is a written or more unequivocal reservation of rights required?; 2) when an insurer assumes and conducts an initial defense without notifying the insured that it is doing so with a reservation of rights, is the insurer estopped from asserting the defense of noncoverage only if the insured can show prejudice, or is prejudice conclusively presumed?; and 3) if the insured must show prejudice, do the facts and circumstances of this case show it?
[10/29]
Zhang v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiff's action against her insurer over disputes arising from a fire of her commercial premises, district court's ruling sustaining defendant's demurrer to a cause of action under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Business and Professions Code section 17200, is vacated and remanded with directions to reinstate the cause of action as an insurer connected with conduct that would violate Insurance Code section 790.03 can also give rise to a private civil cause of action under the UCL.
[10/29]
Guillemaro-Ginorio v. Contreras-Gomez
In plaintiffs' case against the Office of the Insurance Commissioner of Puerto Rico and two consecutive Insurance Commissioners claiming that they were investigated and sanctioned for Insurance Code violations solely because of their political affiliations, district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the amount of $4.7 million and a permanent injunction is affirmed as all of defendants' grounds for relief are without merit.
[10/29]
Cox v. Standard Ins. Co.
In plaintiff's ERISA case, district court's judgment on the administrative record approving defendant's discontinuance of plaintiff's long-term disability benefits is affirmed as, taking the record as a whole and applying the highly deferential arbitrary and capricious standard, defendant's decision appears to have been based on a principled and deliberative reasoning process.
[10/28]
Standard Ins. Co. v. Morrison
In an action claiming that a state's practice of disapproving insurance policies with clauses vesting discretion in insurers violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), summary judgment for defendant-state insurance commissioner is affirmed where: 1) the state's bar on discretionary clauses addresses an insurance-specific problem, because discretionary clauses generally do not exist outside of insurance plans; and 2) the commissioner's practice merely alters the terms by which the presence or absence of the insured contingency is determined; and 3) thus, the state regulatory scheme was saved from preemption under 29 U.S.C. section 1144(a) by the savings clause in section 1144(b).
[10/28]
Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Mendez
In an action by an insurer seeking a declaration that it had no obligation to defend or indemnify defendant against a certain claim because he failed to give proper notice of the claim to insurer, default judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where intervenor-Northwest Airlines should have been permitted to defend the declaratory relief action on its own.
[10/28]
James River Ins. Co. v. Kemper Cas. Ins. Co.
In plaintiff-insurer's case seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify two lawyers who were sued for malpractice, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant-insurer is reversed with instructions to enter the declaratory judgment requested by plaintiff as its policy does not apply since it excludes coverage of conduct covered by a prior insurer, and all the wrongful acts alleged in the malpractice suit arose from events that took place in defendant's policy period.
[10/26]
G-I Holdings v. Reliance Ins. Co.
In plaintiff's action involving coverage under a directors and officers insurance policy brought against defendant Hartford, who had taken over claims administration for defendant-Reliance (liquidated insurer) and assumed some of its liabilities, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Hartford is affirmed where: 1) the Hartford policy period does not include the amended Reliance policy period, and there is no basis to conclude that plaintiff could have reasonably expected its policy with Hartford to cover the Reliance policy; 2) the interrelated wrongful acts provision applies to bar coverage for the CCR and Claimants Committee actions under the Hartford policy; 3) other agreements do not make Hartford directly liable for fraudulent conveyance actions; and 4) judicial estoppel does not apply to Hartford's invoking of the interrelated wrongful acts provision.
[10/26]
Kaldenbach v. Mut. of Omaha Life Ins. Co.
In plaintiff's consumer protection and fraud suit against defendant-insurance company concerning the sale of a so-called "vanishing premium" life insurance policy, denial of plaintiff's motion for certification of the action as a class action is affirmed as the court did not err in concluding that he had not demonstrated any of the requisites for class certification.
[10/22]
College of Dental Surgeons of Puerto Rico v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co.
In plaintiffs' class action lawsuit against defendants, judgment of the district court remanding the case is vacated and remanded as the court determined prematurely that it lacked Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) jurisdiction on the ground that the complaint does not specifically define a proposed class.
More...
Property Law & Real Estate
[11/04]
Simandle v. Vista de Santa Barbara
Trial court's judgment in favor of defendant-Mobilehome Park that it could remove a mobilehome owned by plaintiffs' deceased parents at plaintiffs' expense is affirmed as the plaintiffs forfeited their statutory right under the Mobilehome Residency Law to sell their parents' mobilehouse at the Park.
[11/03]
Omnipoint Holdings, Inc. v. City of Cranston
In plaintiff-wireless carrier's case against a city, the city's zoning board, and some of its members for denying a variance and special use permit to build a wireless communications tower in the city, judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed as the zoning board's decision was a final action for purposes of section 332(c)(7)(B) of the Telecommunications Act, and as such, the court did not err in finding that the zoning board's decision had the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.
[11/03]
T Street Dev., LLC v. Dereje & Dereje
In an appeal from the denial of plaintiff's action to enforce a settlement agreement it claimed the parties reached during the pendency of its suit for specific performance of a real estate transaction, the district court's order is affirmed where the parties had failed to reach agreement on a material element of the case.
[11/02]
Robinson v. US
In an action against the U.S. for encroachment onto plaintiffs' easement, the dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Quiet Title Act is vacated where the district court needed to determine whether plaintiffs could assert jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
[10/28]
Alston v. Countrywide Fin. Corp.
In plaintiffs-homebuyers' putative class action against Countrywide and its affiliated reinsurer to recover statutory treble damages pursuant to section 8(d)(2) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (RESPA), dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction is reversed as the plain language of RESPA section 8 indicates that Congress created a private right of action without requiring an overcharge allegation. Finally, plaintiffs are not barred by the filed rate doctrine as it simply does not apply in this case.
[10/28]
Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Albany
In an action challenging a city's State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) determination regarding a proposed municipal project, the Appellate Division's order annulling the determination is reversed where: 1) a person who can prove that he or she uses and enjoys a natural resource more than most other members of the public has standing under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) to challenge government actions that threaten that resource; and 2) the government was not required to scrutinize every possible environmental issue, and the failure of the city's environmental impact statement to discuss the possible impact of rezoning on certain rare species was therefore not a fatal flaw.
[10/27]
Trans-Western Petroleum, Inc. v. US Gypsum Co.
In an action seeking a declaration that plaintiff held a lease on certain oil-producing land, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where the production allocation scheme of the unit failed to meet the unambiguous requirements of defendant's lease, and that lease had expired by its terms.
[10/27]
River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Village of Hazel Crest
In plaintiff-church's suit against defendant-village under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act to allow it to relocate to the business district, district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction to allow it to relocate to the property in the interim is affirmed as the church has only a slim chance of success on the merits and any irreparable harm it may suffer does not significantly outweigh the potential harm to the village.
[10/27]
Pettrey v. Enter. Title Agency, Inc.
In plaintiffs' case against defendants alleging fraudulent scheme of charging customers for services not performed and using that money to give kickbacks to real estate agents, district court's order denying class certification is affirmed and the appeal dismissed as the case is moot because plaintiffs have settled and released all of their claims against defendants. Present case is distinguishable from previous cases where the Supreme Court has allowed named plaintiffs to appeal denials of class certification even after the named plaintiffs' individual claims had become moot where plaintiffs retained a personal stake in the case because they would be able to shift part of the costs of litigation to the class members if they prevailed in their attempt at class certification.
[10/26]
People ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Acosta
In an eminent domain proceeding, judgment against Caltrans on defendants' goodwill claim and an order awarding litigation expenses to defendants are affirmed as the claim for goodwill damages is not preempted by the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, and the award of litigation expense is supported by substantial evidence.
[10/23]
Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Props., L.P.
In an action by tenants claiming that their landlords were not entitled to take advantage of the luxury decontrol provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL) while simultaneously receiving tax incentive benefits under the City of New York's J-51 program, the Appellate Division's order reversing dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the RSL did not permit defendants to receive both types of benefits.
More...
Contracts
[11/06]
In re: Smith
Order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversing an order of the Bankruptcy Court is affirmed as a late alimony payment penalty was not a domestic support obligation, and as such, the ex-wife's claim was a general unsecured claim not entitled to priority status and consequently dischargeable.
[11/06]
Ferro Corp. v. Cookson Group, PLC
In plaintiff's suit against defendant for breach of its duty to defend and indemnify arising from antitrust lawsuits brought against plaintiff, summary judgment for defendants and dismissal of all of plaintiff's claims is affirmed as there are no allegations made against plaintiff in the antitrust complaints or amended complaints based on principles of successor liability, and the antitrust cases do not state claims that potentially or arguably fall within the purview of the asset purchase agreement duty to defend.
[11/05]
Solana v. GSF Dev. Driller I
In an admiralty action for a percentage of the salvage value of a drilling unit, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where the record did not support the district court's conclusion that, as a matter of law, the parties agreed that the plaintiffs would be compensated in the same manner that they had previously been compensated by defendant.
[11/05]
General Star Nat. Ins. Co. v. Universal Fabricators, Inc.
In an action claiming that defendant insurer was bound by the terms of an excess insurance policy it had issued to contribute to the satisfaction of a state-court judgment of liability in a personal injury action against two entities for whom the insured had been a contractor, summary judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where the district court erred in deciding that the state-court judgment established legal liability against the insured.
[11/04]
DMA Int'l., Inc. v. Qwest Comms. Int'l., Inc.
In an appeal from the district court's denial of petitioner's motion to vacate an arbitral award, the order is affirmed where the arbitrator's factual findings regarding the meaning of the contract at issue could not be overturned simply because the evidence was conflicting. In addition, attorney's fees are awarded to respondent because petitioner's appeal vexatiously multiplied the proceedings.
[11/04]
Memphis Biofuels, LLC. v. Chicksaw Nation Indus., Inc.
In plaintiff's case against the defendants for repudiating an agreement whereby defendant was to deliver diesel fuel and soybean oil to plaintiff's refinery facility, dismissal of the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed as the defendant, a federally chartered tribal corporation, enjoys tribal-sovereign immunity.
[11/03]
Imation Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips Elec. N.V.
In plaintiff's case against defendants arising from a patent license agreement dispute, judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants is reversed and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in finding that plaintiff's subsidiaries are not licensed under the parties' patent licensing Agreement; and 2) the unambiguous Agreement makes clear that the license grant includes subsidiaries of plaintiff and defendant that meet the Agreement's Subsidiary definition.
[11/03]
T Street Dev., LLC v. Dereje & Dereje
In an appeal from the denial of plaintiff's action to enforce a settlement agreement it claimed the parties reached during the pendency of its suit for specific performance of a real estate transaction, the district court's order is affirmed where the parties had failed to reach agreement on a material element of the case.
[10/30]
Toal v. Tardif
In plaintiffs' petition for confirmation of an arbitration award against defendants, trial court's grant of plaintiff's petition is reversed as plaintiffs failed to prove a basic prerequisite of private arbitration, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, and the signature of defendants' attorney on the arbitration stipulation, standing alone, did not constitute substantial evidence that defendants agreed to arbitrate the dispute.
[10/30]
Lake Almanor Assoc., LLP. v. Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc.
In plaintiff-developer's breach of contract and negligence case against a consultant hired by a county to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR), district court's sustaining of defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's complaint is affirmed as the balance of the factors militates against a conclusion that a consultant owes a duty of care to a project applicant in the timely completion of a draft EIR.
[10/30]
World Harvest Church, Inc. v. GuideOne Mut. Ins. Co.
In an action against an insurer claiming that the insurer was estopped from contesting that a judgment against plaintiff was covered by the policy, the court of appeals certified the following questions to the Georgia Supreme Court: 1) does an insurer effectively reserve its right to deny coverage if it informs the insured that it does "not see coverage," after the insured had received a written reservation of rights from the insurer's sister company in a similar lawsuit in another jurisdiction, or is a written or more unequivocal reservation of rights required?; 2) when an insurer assumes and conducts an initial defense without notifying the insured that it is doing so with a reservation of rights, is the insurer estopped from asserting the defense of noncoverage only if the insured can show prejudice, or is prejudice conclusively presumed?; and 3) if the insured must show prejudice, do the facts and circumstances of this case show it?
More...
Corporation & Enterprise Law
[11/06]
Ferro Corp. v. Cookson Group, PLC
In plaintiff's suit against defendant for breach of its duty to defend and indemnify arising from antitrust lawsuits brought against plaintiff, summary judgment for defendants and dismissal of all of plaintiff's claims is affirmed as there are no allegations made against plaintiff in the antitrust complaints or amended complaints based on principles of successor liability, and the antitrust cases do not state claims that potentially or arguably fall within the purview of the asset purchase agreement duty to defend.
[10/29]
In Re: Constar Int'l Inc. Sec. Litig.
In plaintiffs' securities class action arising from their purchase of defendant's registered shares , district court's grant of the class certification is affirmed where the Rule 23 class certification standard applied by the district court was proper.
[10/29]
Berg & Berg Enters., LLC. v. Boyle
In plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty against defendants, trial court's sustaining of defendant's demurrers to the third amended complaint is affirmed as plaintiff failed to plead a cognizable claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual directors. Furthermore, even if a cognizable claim had been alleged, on the pleaded facts, the business judgment rule insulated the directors from personal liability on the alleged claims for breach of fiduciary duty as a matter of law.
[10/28]
Marriott Int'l. Resorts, LP. v. US
In a partnership-taxation case involving Marriott, United States Court of Federal Claims' grant of summary judgment in favor of the government is affirmed in its determination that in 1994 the obligation to close a short sale qualified as a liability under I.R.C. section 753 and that the IRS properly adjusted the outside basis of the Marriott partners for the 1994 tax year to account for the partnership's assumption of the obligation to close certain short sales.
[10/27]
Delay v. Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC
In plaintiff's action against his former employer, seeking indemnification for legal expenses incurred in successfully defending a prior suit brought against him under the Commodities Exchange Act (CEA), dismissal of his claim on the ground that it was preempted by federal law is vacated and remanded as Congress did not intend to displace the state-law indemnification rights, if any, of parties found not to have violated the CEA.
[10/26]
G-I Holdings v. Reliance Ins. Co.
In plaintiff's action involving coverage under a directors and officers insurance policy brought against defendant Hartford, who had taken over claims administration for defendant-Reliance (liquidated insurer) and assumed some of its liabilities, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Hartford is affirmed where: 1) the Hartford policy period does not include the amended Reliance policy period, and there is no basis to conclude that plaintiff could have reasonably expected its policy with Hartford to cover the Reliance policy; 2) the interrelated wrongful acts provision applies to bar coverage for the CCR and Claimants Committee actions under the Hartford policy; 3) other agreements do not make Hartford directly liable for fraudulent conveyance actions; and 4) judicial estoppel does not apply to Hartford's invoking of the interrelated wrongful acts provision.
[10/23]
Aguas Lenders Recovery Grp. LLC v. Suez, S.A.
In an action to recover on a defaulted loan, dismissal of the action on forum non conveniens grounds is reversed where a non-signatory to an agreement may be bound by a forum selection clause and forum non conveniens waiver contained in contracts entered into by an entity alleged to be a predecessor in interest.
[10/22]
US v. McGeehan
District court's conviction of a publicly-funded non-profit organization's president and vice-president for honest services mail and wire fraud, arising from personal use of funds that were to be used for a Navy project, is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court did not err in denying plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the Ben Franklin Technology Center (BFTC) counts because a superseding indictment made out the necessary elements of honest services fraud; and 2) district court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the Navy counts as there are no allegations in the indictment suggesting the presence of legally cognizable fiduciary duties owed by BFTC to the Navy.
[10/21]
US v. Rigas
In a case involving the founder of Adelphia and his son, denial of defendants' motion to dismiss conspiracy charges in a Pennsylvania indictment, claiming that their conviction for conspiracy and substantive fraud counts in the Southern District of New York violated their right to be free from double jeopardy, is remanded as 18 U.S.C section 371 creates a single statutory offense and defendants established a prima facie case that there was only one conspiratorial agreement. However, denial of defendants' motion to dismiss tax evasion charges in the Pennsylvania Indictment is affirmed.
[10/21]
Republic Sav. Bank, F.S.B. v. US
In plaintiffs' breach of contract claim against the U.S. government arising from the savings and loan crisis of the early 1980s, the decision of the Court of Federal Claims summarily awarding plaintiffs restitution damages is affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated and remanded where: 1) government's challenge to the restitution award of $17 million for plaintiffs' capital contribution is rejected; 2) trial court erred in including, as part of the restitution award, the sale premium; 3) trial court erred by not reducing the award by $4.287 million, the value of the tax benefits plaintiffs received; and 4) trial court did not err in offsetting plaintiffs' award with the government's $3 million cash contribution.
[10/21]
Fannon v. Guidant Corp.
In plaintiffs' consolidated securities action against defendants alleging fraud in connection with a merger, the judgment of the district court is affirmed where it did not abuse its discretion: 1) in dismissing the case with prejudice as the plaintiffs had a number of opportunities to craft a complaint that complied with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act; 2) in denying plaintiffs' motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e); and 3) in denying the plaintiffs' motion to file an amended complaint.
More...
|
