Case Summaries
Insurance Law
Insurance Law
[05/08]
Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd.
In an action brought by Ford and its cargo insurer against defendant-ocean carrier for damages arising from the loss of cargo during a transatlantic voyage, partial summary judgment for defendant and third-party defendants is reversed where the district court erroneously interpreted the bill of lading to apply Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) instead of the Hague-Visby Rules, and additional briefing and fact-finding may be required before the liability limitation may be appropriately applied. (Amended opinion)
[05/08]
In Re: Peanut Crop Ins. Litig.
In an action against the government over the indemnification of losses covered by a privately issued and governmentally backed insurance policy, summary judgment for farmers on breach of contract claims is vacated and the case remanded where: 1) the policy did not create any contractual obligation for insurers to indemnify the farmers for lost peanuts in 2002 at a 31 cent quota rate since it was contingent on 2002 farm poundage quota allocations being made to individual farmers, and such allocations were never made; 2) the prevention doctrine was misapplied since the indemnification of the farmers did not depend on the allocation of quotas by the government; and 3) there was no detrimental reliance since government programs are subject to congressional modification, and the farmers had been notified that there would be revisions to the peanut quota program.
[05/02]
Dill v. Gen. Amer. Life Ins. Co.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2) and 50(b) are non-jurisdictional claims processing rules that provide an affirmative defense to untimely filings if raised, but which can be forfeited if not timely raised.
[05/01]
Worth Constr. Co., Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co.
In a coverage dispute brought by a general contractor arising from injuries sustained by a worker on a staircase installed by a subcontractor, a ruling finding that subcontractor's insurer had a duty of defense and indemnity is reversed where: 1) the victim's injury stemmed from slipping on fireproofing material applied by an entirely separate company unaffiliated with insured-subcontractor; and 2) because the general contractor admitted that its claims of negligence against subcontractor were without factual merit, it conceded that the staircase was merely the situs of the accident, and thus foreclosed arguments of any connection between the victim's accident and the risk for which the coverage was intended.
[04/29]
Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am.
In a class action lawsuit against an insurance corporation challenging the sale of its fixed deferred annuities, an order, which effectively prevents defendant from proceeding with any settlement negotiations on similar class action claims raised in any other courts without permission from plaintiff's lead counsel, is reversed where: 1) in the context of the All Writs Act, there was no proper support for the district court's enjoining of proceedings in other courts; and 2) even if there were, the Anti-Injunction Act barred such injunction.
[04/29]
Everett v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co.
In a coverage dispute against an insurer alleging, inter alia, breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, promissory fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) upon interpreting plaintiff's policy, the policy language was not unclear and did not guarantee to cover plaintiff's loss in its entirety; 2) plaintiffs assertions were insufficient to support a claim for a breach of contract; 3) with no breach of contract, there was no breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; 4) the underlying facts established no misrepresentation, negligent or intentional.
[04/24]
US v. Ogba
Defendants' convictions and sentences resulting from a scheme involving billing Medicare for false prescriptions for wheelchairs are affirmed in part over claims of error regarding: 1) whether the circuit court abused its discretion in refusing to provide defendants with a copy of a colloquy between a recruiter and the judge; 2) a refusal to admit an e-mail about the recruiter into evidence; 3) cumulative errors regarding the recruiter's testimony; 4) a Confrontation Clause claim, and whether any such error was harmless; 5) a deliberate ignorance instruction; 6) whether the indictment was void; and 7) whether the indictment failed to allege an offense enumerated in the Constitution. One defendant's sentence is reversed and remanded based on a claim that his convictions under the health care fraud and illegal remuneration statutes were multiplicitous and violated double jeopardy.
[04/24]
Crocker v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins.
In a case in which plaintiff sought to recover on the basis of a $1 million default judgment for a personal injury claim, summary judgment for plaintiff on a claim to recover her judgment as a third party beneficiary from defendant-insurer is reversed where defendant owed no duty to defend insured-tortfeasor, or to sua sponte notify him that its policy covered him, based on his failure: 1) to request defense in any manner, 2) to give defendant notice of the suit, 3) to furnish it copies of any relevant papers; and 4) to comply with its relevant notice provisions.
[04/23]
Royal Indem. Co. v. United Enter., Inc.
In an insurance coverage action wherein the trial court denied a motion to intervene on grounds that neither public policy nor existing authority would allow for such intervention at the time, the order denying intervention is affirmed where: 1) the intervener had not shown that it met the applicable criteria for permissive intervention under Code Civ. Proc. section 387; and 2) its reliance upon certain cases in support of its position was inapposite.
[04/23]
Rodriguez v. Blue Cross of California
Denial of a petition to compel arbitration is affirmed where arbitration provisions in an enrollment form of a health care service plan failed to comply or substantially comply with Health and Safety Code section 1363.1.
[12/05]
Levan v. Independence Mall Inc.
In an action arising from an injury in a work-related accident wherein a petition for additional compensation was filed with the Industrial Accident Board more than 5 years after the employer's insurance carrier mailed the last medical expense payment, judgment that the petition was time-barred under 19 Del. C. section 2361(b) is affirmed over claims that: 1) the limitations period began to run when the claimant or his medical provider actually receives the last payment; and 2) the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence; and 3) the Superior Court applied its own construction of section 2361(b) incorrectly and erred when it upheld the Board's ultimate ruling of the petition as barred.
[11/21]
Asbestos Workers Local Union No. 42 Welfare Fund v. Brewster
In a subrogation action brought by an ERISA Fund wherein one of its members sought to have her medical expenses from an automobile accident paid by the Fund, summary judgment for plan administrators is affirmed whereby: 1) the Fund's state law subrogation claim was preempted by ERISA section 514, as the claim "relates to" the ERISA plan; and 2) the Fund's subrogation claim duplicated or supplemented a civil enforcement remedy available to the Fund under section 502(a)(3) of ERISA.
More...
|
