Case Summaries
Insurance Law
Property Law & Real Estate
Contracts
Corporation & Enterprise Law
Insurance Law
[11/19]
Martco Ltd. Pshp. v. Wellons Inc.
In an action against an insurer seeking coverage for an underlying lawsuit regarding defects in a heating system installed by plaintiff, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) defendant had a duty to defend the underlying suit in light of the language of the policy and the allegations of the underlying complaint; and 2) the "work product" exclusion in the policy did not preclude recovery.
[11/13]
Kim Seng Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York
In a dispute over whether plaintiff's insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify plaintiff in a trademark infringement action under an "advertising injury" policy, summary judgment for insurance company is affirmed as the prior publication exclusion in the policy bars coverage for trademark infringement in this case.
[11/13]
Kovach v. Zurich American Ins. Co.
In plaintiff's ERISA suit against an insurance company for denying his claim for dismemberment benefits arising from a drunk-driving motorcycle accident, summary judgment for defendant-plan administrator is reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiffs where: 1) defendant's decision to deny benefits to the plaintiffs was contrary to the everyday meaning of the word "accidental" as it would be understood by a typical policyholder, and was based almost entirely on a body of largely distinguishable district court cases; 2) plaintiff's injuries were not "highly likely to occur" as a result of his intoxication, in contrast to the injuries that were highly likely to occur under the facts in Lennon; 3) defendant's interpretation of the Plan's provisions amounts to an additional, unwritten exclusion for all drunk-driving injuries, which is not permitted under even the most deferential standard of review; and 4) defendant's denial of coverage based on plaintiff's injuries being non-accidental was unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious.
[11/12]
Berry & Murphy, P.C. v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co.
In an action for insurance coverage for a malpractice lawsuit, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the alleged acts of malpractice in a letter sent to the malpractice defendant and the lawsuit were "connected by an inevitable or predictable interrelation or sequence of events" for purposes of the policy; 2) the insurance policy treated as one claim all "related wrongful acts"; and 3) because defendant had no legally cognizable duty to defend or indemnify a claim, plaintiffs' bad faith claim could not survive.
[11/10]
Safety Nat'l. Cas. Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's
In an appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration of a contractual dispute among insurers, the order is reversed where the McCarran–Ferguson Act does not authorize state law to reverse-preempt the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards or its implementing legislation.
[11/10]
Payless ShoeSource, Inc. v. Travelers Cos., Inc.
In an action against an insurer for coverage of a settlement in a wage and hour lawsuit, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where, by operation of the plain terms of the agreement, plaintiff had no claim for coverage against 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.
[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.
More...
Property Law & Real Estate
[11/19]
Hoffman v. Smithwoods RV Park, LLC
In plaintiff's suit against the defendant-Mobile Park for refusing to permit the installation of a new mobile home in its mobile home park to replace an older one that plaintiff had inherited, trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's suit is affirmed where: 1) the complaint fails to state a cause of action for statutory violation; 2) the complaint fails to state a tort cause of action for interference with contract; 3) the complaint fails to state a contract cause of action; and 4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.
[11/19]
Kelly v. CB&I Constructors, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against the defendant for sparking a brush fire that caused a significant damage to his ranch, judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) defendant forfeited any error in the jury's verdict form; 2) jury's award of restoration damages in excess of the property's value was supported by substantial evidence and was not excessive as a matter of law; 3) the undisputed evidence established that plaintiff did not reside on the property at the time of the trespass, and his storage of personal property there was not the type of "occupancy" that would justify his recovery of annoyance and discomfort damages; 4) tree damage caused by a negligently spread fire is wrongful injury to trees caused by a trespass subject to mandatory doubling pursuant to Civil Code section 3346, notwithstanding the general provision governing fire damage in Health and Safety Code section 13007; and 5) substantial evidence supported trial court's finding that plaintiff intended to use the property for raising livestock, entitling him to an award of attorney's fees under Code of Civ. Proc. section 1021.9.
[11/18]
US ex rel Ondis v. City of Woonsocket
In plaintiff's qui tam action against a city under the False Claims Act claiming that the city had defrauded the federal government by making false statements to the Department of Housing and Urban Development when applying for federal grants, dismissal of the case is affirmed where the was no error in a conclusion that the FCA's public disclosure bar applied to divest the district court of subject matter jurisdiction over the action as: 1) the city's alleged misrepresentation and what the plaintiff alleges was the city's true plan were sufficiently in the public domain to ground an inference of fraud; 2) the public disclosure occurred in the manner specified in the statute; 3) plaintiff's suit is based upon those publicly disclosed allegations or transactions; 4) plaintiff does not qualify for the original source exception; and 5) district court did not err in precluding certain testimony during an evidentiary hearing.
[11/13]
Artisan/Am. Corp. v. City of Alvin
In an action alleging that defendant-city's denial of a permit for plaintiff to construct a low-income housing project was motivated by racial animus and that it had a discriminatory impact on racial minorities, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) there was no evidence that the resolutions passed by the city council constituted departures from the city's normal policy and procedure; 2) the city's interpretation of its own ordinance was not unreasonable; and 3) plaintiffs failed to raise a fact question as to whether the city's actions caused a significant discriminatory effect.
[11/13]
Bloch v. Frischholz
In plaintiffs' Fair Housing Act (FHA) suit against their condo association for being required to remove a mezuzah from their doorpost under a new rule requiring that common hallways and outside of the doors be kept free of any objects, summary judgment in favor the condo association and its president is reversed for the most part where: 1) the judgment of the district court with respect to plaintiffs' claims under sections 3604(b), 3617 and 1982 is reversed as a trier of fact could conclude that the condo association's reinterpretation of the hallway rule and clearing of all objects from doorposts was intended to target only groups of residents for which the prohibited practice was religiously required; 2) plaintiffs can therefore proceed on an intentional discrimination theory under sections 3604(b), 3617 and 1982; and 3) district court's judgment granting summary judgment against the plaintiffs on their section 3604(a) claim is affirmed.
[11/12]
In re: Madera
In debtors' bankruptcy proceedings for defaulting on their loan, ruling upholding the bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment to the creditors and its denial of debtors' motion to amend is affirmed where: 1) the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precluded the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction over debtors' rescission claim because that claim was inextricably intertwined with a Court of Common Pleas' foreclosure judgment; 2) there was an adequate basis for summary judgment on the Truth in Lending Act damages claim, specifically, that debtors failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they had prior title insurance in connection with the loan; and 3) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying debtor's motion to amend as it was untimely.
[11/10]
National Parks & Conservation Ass'n. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt.
In a Federal Land and Policy Management Act challenge to the exchange of certain private lands for several parcels of land surrounding a mine site and owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where: 1) the BLM should have taken the reasonably probable use of public lands for a landfill into consideration as part of the highest and best use analysis; and 2) as a result of its unreasonably narrow purpose and need statement, the BLM necessarily considered an unreasonably narrow range of alternatives. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) the BLM's Record of Decision never became effective, and could not serve as the agency's final action; and 2) the record as a whole established that the BLM's interpretation of "full consideration," as evinced by the analyses in the environmental impact statement at issue, was permissible under 43 U.S.C. section 1716(a).
[11/09]
Kunelius v. Town of Stow
In plaintiff's breach of contract action against defendants involving a town's exercise of its statutory right of first refusal (ROFR) to purchase plaintiff's forest land and subsequent assignment of its right to a nonprofit conservation organization, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the liquidated damages provision applies to defendants, as the holder of an ROFR must meet all of the terms and conditions of the offer, including subsidiary terms such as the liquidated damages clause at issue; 2) the liquidated damages provision is enforceable; 3) district court's summary judgment with respect to a Chapter 93A claim, the business-to-business provisions of the consumer protection statute, was properly granted to defendants as Chapter 93A is not applicable where a nonprofit defendant is acting in furtherance of its core mission; 4) plaintiff's challenge to the district court's conclusion that she did not plead a violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in her complaint is rejected; and 5) plaintiff's remaining claims are rejected as meritless.
[11/09]
Playa Marel, P.M., S.A. v. LKS Acquisitions, Inc.
In plaintiffs' declaratory judgment action claiming that defendants were not entitled to compensation under an alleged contract involving real estate development, summary judgment for plaintiffs is vacated and remanded as there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction over the case because the only federal issue in the case arises as a possible defense to a state law claim. Furthermore, this conclusion is not altered by the fact that the statute at issue is the Securities Exchange Act, nor is this a case where a state law claim necessarily raises a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.
[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]
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.
More...
Contracts
[11/20]
Hukic v. Aurora Loan Serv.
In plaintiff's suit against defendants claiming breach of contract, tortious interference, and violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, arising from a six-figure mortgage he obtained at an interest rate of 10.65% where he was to make monthly payments as well as taxes, insurance premiums and other charges and fees, summary judgment in defendants' favor and dismissal of plaintiff's claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress is affirmed because plaintiff did not comply with the terms of his agreement that required him to submit proof of payment.
[11/20]
Curia v. Nelson
In parties' dispute over the terms of a stock purchase agreement entered into in 1989 and several modification of the agreement over the next decade involving a small number of shares in two automobile dealerships and whether the contract also gave plaintiff option to purchase remaining shares, summary judgment in plaintiff's favor is reversed as extrinsic evidence is required to clarify what the parties meant because the contract as modified is reasonably susceptible to both parties' interpretation and is therefore ambiguous regarding the survival of the options.
[11/20]
PPG Indus., Incorp. v. Int'l Chem. Workers Union Council of the United Food and Commercial Workers
District court's order vacating an arbitrator's award in favor of a union on the ground that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by adding a term to the underlying contract is reversed and remanded as, even if the arbitrator erred, he acted within the scope of his authority under the contract.
[11/19]
Dealer Computer Servs. Inc. v. Old Colony Motors Inc.
In an action under 9 U.S.C. section 4 to compel defendant to pay a deposit in the underlying arbitration between the parties, an order requiring defendant to pay is reversed where the issue of whether defendant should be required to pay was a procedural issue left to the discretion of the arbitrators.
[11/19]
Martco Ltd. Pshp. v. Wellons Inc.
In an action against an insurer seeking coverage for an underlying lawsuit regarding defects in a heating system installed by plaintiff, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) defendant had a duty to defend the underlying suit in light of the language of the policy and the allegations of the underlying complaint; and 2) the "work product" exclusion in the policy did not preclude recovery.
[11/19]
Hoffman v. Smithwoods RV Park, LLC
In plaintiff's suit against the defendant-Mobile Park for refusing to permit the installation of a new mobile home in its mobile home park to replace an older one that plaintiff had inherited, trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's suit is affirmed where: 1) the complaint fails to state a cause of action for statutory violation; 2) the complaint fails to state a tort cause of action for interference with contract; 3) the complaint fails to state a contract cause of action; and 4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.
[11/19]
Davis v. Ford Motor Credit Co.
In plaintiff's action against the Ford Motor Credit Company (Ford) claiming that Ford's billing practices under a retail installment sales contract in charging late fees is prohibited by the Rees-Levering Motor Vehicle Sales and Finance Act, and actionable under Unfair Competition Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, dismissal of the suit is affirmed where: 1) Ford's conduct of charging successive late fees for successive late payments does not violate Civil Code section 2982(k)'s prohibition on charging more than one late fee per delinquent installment; 2) plaintiff cannot allege Ford's billing practice is an unfair business practice within the meaning of UCL because the alleged injury is one plaintiff reasonably could have avoided; and 3) although Ford was the prevailing party, it cannot recover its attorney's fees pursuant to the Rees-Levering's reciprocal attorney's fees provision because the alleged Rees-Levering violation was merely a predicate to the UCL claims, and a prevailing defendant cannot recover attorney's fees under the UCL.
[11/19]
Dowell v. Pacesetter, Inc.
In plaintiffs' suit against the defendant to enjoin it from enforcing noncompete and nonsolicitation clauses in employment agreements used in California, trial court's ruling that the clauses were facially void under Business and Professions Code section 16600 and that their use violated California's Unfair Competition Law and that defendant's unclean hands defense and its cross-complaint for unfair competition failed as a matter of law is affirmed where: 1) the trial court properly determined that the clauses were void as a matter of law, that no defense applied and that the cross-complaint failed to state a cause of action; and 2) trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a permanent injunction and costs
[11/17]
Epic Communications, Inc. v. Richwave Tech., Inc.
In an action by a Taiwanese corporation and its California subsidiary seeking damages for misappropriation of intellectual property involving a Design Services Agreement of a silicon-germanium power amplifier for use in wireless networking devices, trial court's order quashing service of summons is reversed where: 1) a refusal by California courts to exercise jurisdiction cannot be justified by the mere fact that a claim arising from California contacts is prosecuted by a nonresident; and 2) subjecting the defendant to local jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice as, here the two Taiwanese defendants engaged in conduct in California, and caused effects in California, that made it readily foreseeable that they would be haled into court here in the event of a dispute of the present type.
[11/17]
Alabama Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. US
In plaintiff's post-award bid protest case against the Department of the Air Force (agency) for awarding a billion-dollar-plus contract to Boeing for long-term maintenance on the Air Force's fleet of KC-135 Stratotanker aircraft, judgment in favor of plaintiff is reversed and the injunction against proceeding with the contract awarded to Boeing is vacated as the agency's price-realism analysis based on the set work package was not arbitrary and capricious, and the trial court's contrary determination was not within the court's scope of review under the APA standard.
[11/13]
Hawknet, Ltd. v. Overseas Shipping Agencies
In an appeal from the district court's order vacating the attachment of an electronic funds transfer (EFT), the order is affirmed and the case is remanded for an order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction where: 1) the rule announced recently in Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., __ F.3d __, No.08-3477, 2009 WL 3319675 (2d Cir. Oct. 16, 2009), applies retroactively; and 2) a party's failure to assert an argument prior to the announcement of a decision which might support it does not constitute waiver.
More...
Corporation & Enterprise Law
[11/20]
New York Guangdong Fin. Inc. v. Comm'r. of Int'l. Rev.
In an appeal from a tax court's judgment sustaining in part the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's notice of deficiency for withholding tax deficiencies and additions to tax, the order is affirmed where: 1) the Commissioner did not act arbitrarily when it relied on information provided to it by petitioner under penalties of perjury; 2) the Agreement for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Tax Evasion With Respect to Taxes on Income did not exempt interest paid to a Chinese corporation from withholding tax; and 3) the record contained no evidence that petitioner relied on the advice of a competent professional in deciding not to file the Forms 1042 for the years in question.
[11/20]
Curia v. Nelson
In parties' dispute over the terms of a stock purchase agreement entered into in 1989 and several modification of the agreement over the next decade involving a small number of shares in two automobile dealerships and whether the contract also gave plaintiff option to purchase remaining shares, summary judgment in plaintiff's favor is reversed as extrinsic evidence is required to clarify what the parties meant because the contract as modified is reasonably susceptible to both parties' interpretation and is therefore ambiguous regarding the survival of the options.
[11/20]
Scruggs v. Garst Seed Co.
In an action raising claims of retaliation and a hostile work environment, summary judgment in favor of plaintiff's former employer is affirmed where: 1) the company did not retaliate against plaintiff for filing the discrimination charge when it eliminated her position as it was eliminated by a company-wide restructuring; 2) although plaintiff claims that the company also retaliated against her when it did not hire her for one of the open positions after the restructuring, it hired the person who had previously held the position; and 3) the relatively isolated gender-based comments and remarks plaintiff's supervisor directed toward her were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to rise to the level of a hostile work environment.
[11/19]
Go v. Pac. Health Serv., Inc.
In plaintiff's suit seeking involuntary dissolution of defendant-company, of which she had been a director and shareholder, trial court's decree providing for the winding up and dissolution of the corporation unless defendants made payment to the plaintiff for her shares, in the specified amount, within the specified time, is affirmed with respect to the alternative decree issued by the trial court as it followed the statutory requirements set forth in the plain language of section 2000.
[11/18]
Boyer v. Crown Stock Distrib., Inc.
In Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings in which the trustee filed an adversary action against the defendants claiming fraudulent conveyance under the section 4(a)(2) of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, judgment in favor of the trustee is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) bankruptcy court did not commit clear error in finding that the statutory condition for a fraudulent conveyance was satisfied; and 2) district court's ruling with respect to the dividend is reversed as the trustee is entitled to the dividend because it was an integral part of the leveraged buy-out.
[11/17]
Epic Communications, Inc. v. Richwave Tech., Inc.
In an action by a Taiwanese corporation and its California subsidiary seeking damages for misappropriation of intellectual property involving a Design Services Agreement of a silicon-germanium power amplifier for use in wireless networking devices, trial court's order quashing service of summons is reversed where: 1) a refusal by California courts to exercise jurisdiction cannot be justified by the mere fact that a claim arising from California contacts is prosecuted by a nonresident; and 2) subjecting the defendant to local jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice as, here the two Taiwanese defendants engaged in conduct in California, and caused effects in California, that made it readily foreseeable that they would be haled into court here in the event of a dispute of the present type.
[11/17]
Nutragenetics, LLC v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiff's suit against the defendants alleging he was defrauded into investing in their company, defendants' petition for writ of mandate is denied as trial court properly found plaintiff's peremptory challenge to the judge to be timely where: 1) the second lawsuit involves a different defendant and different causes of action asserted against that defendant; and 2) the second lawsuit does not arise from conduct in, or involve enforcement or modification of an order in, the first lawsuit.
[11/17]
1680 Prop. Trust v. Newman Trust
In plaintiffs' suit against the defendant-Newman Trust for breach of fiduciary duty based on fraud, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed as the Code of Civ. Proc. section 366.2 period of limitations is applicable to fraud claims based on statements of the decedent on behalf of a trust of which he was trustor and trustee, even though the action is against the successor trustee.
[11/12]
State of Arizona v. Yuen
Grant of defendant's motion to vacate a sister state judgment and denial of Arizona's motion for reconsideration, arising from defendant's incorporation of a company in Arizona at her husband's request, is affirmed as the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that: 1) defendant had no notice of the Arizona administrative proceedings; 2) defendant did not retain the lawyer as her attorney; and 3) defendant never signed a written waiver of the lawyer's conflict of interest in representing clients with opposing interests.
[11/10]
Jackson v. Yarbray
In plaintiffs' malicious prosecution action against defendants involving an ealier case that arose from unsuccessful efforts to merge with businesses owned by defendants, trial court's finding that defendants are liable for the malicious prosecution of a civil action and award of $700,000 in general damages for emotional distress and $2.41 million in punitive damages to plaintiffs is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the judgment as to defendant's counsel who had represented them for part of the time the action was pending is affirmed in its entirety as the trial court did not err in concluding plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving counsel had acted with malice; 2) portion of the judgment awarding compensatory damages is reversed in part and remanded to determine the amount of attorney fees and costs properly recoverable as special damages by the plaintiffs as the trial court erred in precluding any recovery by the plaintiffs for attorney fees incurred in defending the underlying action; and 3) judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all other respects.
[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.
More...
|
