Case Summaries

Commercial 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)

[05/07] Family Home & Fin. Ctr, Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.
In mortgage broker's action raising claims against Freddie Mac for intentional interference with contract, unfair competition under California state law, and defamation, summary judgment and a related ruling for Freddie Mac are affirmed where: 1) the intentional interference claim failed as there was no admissible evidence that Freddie Mac influenced or caused another party to terminate its mortgage broker contract with plaintiff, intentionally or otherwise; 2) Freddie Mac's placement of plaintiff on its "Exclusionary List" did not constitute unfair competition; 3) for purposes of the defamation claim, plaintiff failed to show malice to defeat the Common Interest Privilege; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in denying a request to defer ruling on summary judgment.

[05/07] B & H Med., L.L.C. v. ABP Admin., Inc.
In an antitrust case involving the legality of an agreement which established an exclusive network of preferred providers to supply types of medical equipment to enrollees in certain health-benefits plans offered to Chrysler, Ford, and state employees and retirees, a judgment and sanctions against plaintiff whose application to the network was rejected are affirmed, and appellate sanctions imposed, where: 1) plaintiff's antitrust claims lacked any conceivable merit; 2) a challenge to a discovery order failed; and 3) sanctions imposed below were not an abuse of discretion, and further, appellate sanctions were warranted.

[05/06] Pludeman v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc.
The court of appeals rules that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for fraud against individually-named corporate defendants pursuant to CPLR 3016(b) where it was not unequivocal, as a matter of law, that a finder of fact could not reasonably infer the requisite knowledge or participation by the individual defendants in an act of fraud.

[04/30] Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC
In a case primarily addressing whether a realtor who represented the lessee in a complex commercial lease transaction had a duty to inform the lessor, after the lease was signed but before the lessee took possession, that the lessee's ability to perform the conditions of the lease was jeopardized by its deteriorating financial condition, the judgment below is affirmed primarily as the trial court did not err: 1) in determining that the lessor failed to plead facts sufficient to establish any duty on the realtor's part; nor 2) in refusing to award attorney fees to the lessor based upon its defeat of the realtor's claims for unpaid commissions pursuant to Civil Code section 1717.

[04/30] City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.
In an action involving the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which provides that any "qualified civil liability action that is pending on October 26, 2005, shall be immediately dismissed by the court in which the action was brought or is currently pending", the circuit court finds that: 1) a claim by the city of New York, predicated on New York Penal Law section 240.45, did not fall within an exception to the claim restricting provisions of the Act; and 2) the PLCAA was a valid exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause, and the PLCAA did not violate the separation of powers doctrine or otherwise offend the Constitution in any manner alleged by the city.

More...

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.

More...

Professional Malpractice

[05/08] U.S. v. Harper
In an action alleging intentional and negligent misrepresentation by defendant's failure to disclose information in a referral letter, judgment against one defendant is reversed where: 1) the referral letter was not affirmatively misleading since it did not comment nor recommend on the doctor's proficiency; and 2) defendant did not have an affirmative duty to disclose negative facts. As for other defendants, their liability is affirmed, but the case is vacated and remanded in order to determine if there needs to be a re-apportionment of damages between the remaining defendants.

[04/29] Kaplan v. Mamelak
In an action involving claims of medical malpractice and battery against defendant-neurosurgeon, judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where the trial court erred in: 1) prohibiting discovery on the tolling of the statute of limitations for days which defendant was out of the state; and 2) sustaining defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's action for battery on grounds that defendant did not intent to operate beyond plaintiff's consent.

[04/29] Gibson v. Moskowitz
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and state law action brought by the estate of a mentally disabled inmate who died from severe dehydration, a judgment pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of the estate is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) there was sufficient evidence to show deliberate indifference on the part of defendant-psychiatrist; 2) the evidence supported the compensatory and punitive damages awards; 3) the punitive damages award was not constitutionally excessive; 4) claims of evidentiary errors are rejected; 5) there was no error in applying Michigan's "high tier cap" on non-economic damages for medical malpractice; but 6) a remand was required as the district court failed to state a reason as to how it allocated the award between the statutorily capped malpractice claim and the deliberate indifference claims.

[04/24] Rodriguez v. Bank of the West
In a case wherein a lawyer filed negligence claims against several banks after the lawyer's office manager opened bank accounts in the lawyer's name with a forged signature, deposited client funds, and stole from those accounts, dismissal of lawyer's action is affirmed where the lawyer was not deemed a "customer" to which the banks owed a duty of care.

[04/23] Giesse v. Sec'y of Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs.
In a suit seeking damages subsequent to an alleged wrongful termination of medical care, grant of motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's claims are not appeals from an administrative determination since plaintiff sought damages and not reinstatement of services; 2) there was no due process violation since plaintiff does not have a vested property interest in 100 days of post-hospital extended care; and 3) there is no implied right of action as the Medicare Act has provided a mechanism to address claims of wrongful denials of benefits and provided a remedy in the form of reinstatement of care.

[11/30] Leatherbury v. Greenspun
In a medical malpractice suit wherein plaintiff's complaint was deemed time barred for failing to comply with Title 18 section 6856(3) of Delaware Code, the Supreme Court upholds the judgment and rules that: 1) section 6856(3) certified mail provision is not reasonably susceptible to different conclusions or interpretations and explicitly provides that plaintiff may toll the running of the 2-year limitations period for 90 days by sending a Notice of Intent to investigate "only" by "certified mail", return receipt requested; and 2) the term "certified mail" does not include delivery through private carriers, such as delivery by Federal Express.

More...