Case Summaries

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] 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...

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.

More...