US Supreme Court

BURLINGTON NORTHERN & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO. et al. v. UNITED STATES et al. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) is designed to promote the cleanup of hazardous waste sites and to ensure that cleanup costs are borne by those responsible for the contamination. In 1960, Brown & Bryant, Inc. (B&B), an agricultural chemical distributor, began operating on a parcel of land located in Arvin, California. B&B later expanded onto an adjacent parcel owned by petitioners Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company and Union Pacific Railroad Company (Railroads). As part of its business, B&B purchased and stored various hazardous chemicals, including the pesticide D-D, which it bought from petitioner Shell Oil Company (Shell). Over time, many of these chemicals spilled during transfers and deliveries, and as a result of equipment failures

VOLVO TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. REEDER-SIMCO GMC, INC. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc. (Reeder), an authorized dealer of heavy-duty trucks manufactured by Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. (Volvo), generally sold those trucks through an industry-wide competitive bidding process, whereby the retail customer describes its specific product requirements and invites bids from dealers it selects based on such factors as an existing relationship, geography, and reputation

OLYMPIC AIRWAYS v. HUSAIN, individually, and as personal representative of the ESTATE OF
HANSON, DECEASED, et al. Under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention (Convention), an air carrier is liable for a passenger's death or bodily injury caused by an "accident" occurring on an international flight

1st Circuit Court of Appeals

Montalvo v. Gonzalez-Amparo In an action alleging malpractice by plaintiff's deceased mother's medical care providers, dismissal of the suit as time-barred is vacated and remanded where: 1) the date of accrual for plaintiff's personal claim was within the one-year statute of limitations; and 2) under 32 L.P.R.A. section 255, plaintiff is entitled to bring her mother's medical malpractice claim because it was brought within one year of her mother's death.

Taylor v. Airco, Inc In a wrongful death action, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's employer was a sophisticated user of defendants' products, and defendants owed plaintiff no duty to warn about the dangers of their products; 2) plaintiff's fraud claim fails as the record contains no evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that defendants' were responsible for the allegedly false or misleading representations in a safety data sheet; and 3) plaintiff's civil conspiracy claim failed as a reasonable jury could not conclude that conspiring defendants substantially assisted plaintiff's employer in defrauding him.

2nd Circuit Court of Appeals

Norwind v. Rowland In an action for legal malpractice, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where plaintiffs failed to show actual injury because, under German law, they would have only been entitled to 50% of the subject inheritance regardless of any malpractice on the part of their counsel.

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.

3rd Circuit Court of Appeals

Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig. In class action cases claiming a vast conspiracy between some of the nation's largest insurance brokers and insurance carriers involving bid rigging and steering of customers, district court's orders granting final approval of a $121.8 million settlement and a $28 million settlement, as well as the district court's order approving an award of $29.5 million for attorneys' fees and expenses is affirmed where: 1) each element of the alleged RICO violations and violation under the Sherman Act involved common questions of law and fact which predominated over any individual ones and therefore satisfies the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3); 2) the district court's decision not to certify separate subclasses or require separate representation did not constitute an abuse of discretion and likewise, its approval of the settlement agreement and plan of allocation was also within its discretion; and 3) district court's award of attorneys' fees was reasonable and not an abuse of discretion.

D'Jamoos v. Pilatus Aircraft Ltd In a products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty action against an aircraft manufacturer, district court judgment is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) the court properly dismissed defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction as plaintiff failed to establish that defendant had the requisite minimum contacts with the forum; but 2) the court erred in denying plaintiff's motion to transfer the case to Colorado, as plaintiffs established that a Colorado court could exercise general jurisdiction over defendant based on its direct contacts within the state or the conduct of its subsidiary as its agent. The case is remanded for further proceedings, including a determination as to whether such transfer to Colorado would be in the interest of justice and whether a severance is in order.

4th Circuit Court of Appeals

Kerns v. US In plaintiff's lawsuit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that the government's employee negligently caused an automobile accident killing her husband, dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is vacated and remanded as, when the scope-of-employment issue is determinative of both jurisdiction and the underlying merits of an FTCA claim, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) is inappropriate.

Rowzie v. Allstate Ins. In a suit filed by insurance policy holders against an insurer alleging that defendant's policy of offsetting payments of underinsured motorist benefits by amounts paid for medical benefits violated two separate state statutes, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where the insurer's policy section at issue, which provided for a reduction of underinsured motorist damages payable by amounts paid as medical payment benefits, did not violate either state statute.

5th Circuit Court of Appeals

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.

Lexington Ins. Co. v. S.H.R.M. Catering Servs., Inc. In a personal injury action where Plaintiff-Insurer sued as the assignee of the injury victim, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where unliquidated personal injury claims are not assignable under maritime tort law.

6th Circuit Court of Appeals

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.

Nickels V. Grand Trunck Western R.R., Inc. In a Federal Employers' Liability Act action based on injuries Plaintiffs sustained in working at Defendant's railroad yard, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed, where a Federal Railway Safety Act regulation covered the hazard at issue and precluded Plaintiffs' negligence claims.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Fletcher v. Chicago Rail Link, L.L.C In an action brought by an employee under the Federal Employers Liability Act seeking damages for injuries that occurred at a railroad yard, district court judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) defendant was liable for plaintiff's injuries under the Act, but plaintiff's own negligence made him 50 percent responsible for the accident as well; and 2) the court erred in awarding full damages after applying the exception under 45 U.S.C. sec. 53 and finding that a violation by the employer of a statute enacted for the safety of employees contributed to the accident, as 45 U.S.C. sec. 53 refers to any federal statute designed to promote railroad safety and the judge based the ruling on a violation of an inapplicable state law.

Thomas v. Cook County Sheriff's Dep't In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against a county, sheriff, and correctional employees, alleging that defendants violated her son's constitutional rights by failing to respond to his serious medical needs while detained, jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff and award in the amount of $4,450,000 is affirmed for the most part where: 1) the jury had sufficient evidence to impose liability against the county and officers for their deliberate indifference to the detainee's medical needs; 2) there is insufficient evidence to hold the sheriff liable as the causal connection between the sheriff's policies and practices and detainee's death is tenuous in light of the jury's finding that individual correctional officers deliberately disregarded the detainee's medical needs; 3) nonetheless, the sheriff's absence as a liable party does not affect the jury's compensatory damage award as the parties are jointly and severally liable for the entire award, which measures the amount required to compensate the plaintiff for her indivisible harm, and the sheriff only added an additional source from whom the plaintiff could collect; 4) jury's damage award for constitutional violations that resulted in death is not excessive; and 5) none of the defendants' evidentiary challenges warrant reversal.

8th Circuit Court of Appeals

Donaldson Co. v. Burroughs Diesel, Inc. In a product liability action based on defective truck engines, the district court's order compelling arbitration is reversed where defendant was a nonparty to the arbitration agreement and Mississippi law did not permit defendant to enforce the agreement on a theory of equitable estoppel.

Moore v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. In an action for breach of an insurance contract and bad faith, district court judgment against defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant failed to preserve for review its contention that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its bad-faith claim; 2) objection to the instruction on bad faith was waived as defendant failed to raise the objection during the instruction conference before the case was submitted, and the jury instructions as a whole fairly and adequately submitted the issues in the case to the jury; 3) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial or a new trial based on juror misconduct, as the misconduct was innocuous and the juror was removed from the panel; 4) the jury verdict on the bad faith claim was supported by sufficient evidence, and the damages award was not excessive; and 5) the court did not err in submitting the punitive damages issue to the jury, and the jury's award was neither excessive nor unconstitutional.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

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.

Kearns v. Ford Motor Co. In an action claiming that Defendant car company made false and misleading statements about the safety of its used vehicles, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where Plaintiff's claims were all grounded in fraud, and thus his failure to plead with particularity merited dismissal.

10th Circuit Court of Appeals

Pacheco v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co In an action for insurance proceeds arising out of a car accident, summary judgment for defendant-insurer is reversed where the policy's exclusion of resident relatives who own a vehicle from Uninsured Motorist/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM) coverage violated Colorado public policy and thus there were issues of fact regarding whether defendant properly advised and offered UM/UIM coverage in an amount equal to the bodily injury limits for that policy.

Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v Yeates In an action by an insurer seeking a declaration that it had no liability to plaintiffs under a general liability policy, judgment for defendants is reversed where the MCS-90 endorsement in the policy was intended to impose a surety obligation on the insurance company, and thus when an injured party obtains a negligence judgment against a motor carrier, an insurer's obligation under the MCS-90 endorsement is not triggered unless: 1) the underlying insurance policy (to which the endorsement is attached) does not provide liability coverage for the accident; and 2) the carrier's other insurance coverage is either insufficient to meet the federally-mandated minimums or non-existent.

11th Circuit Court of Appeals

Waters v. Miller In an insurance coverage action arising out of an auto accident, summary judgment for Defendant-Insurer is affirmed, where Defendant's failure to notify the state Department of Motor Vehicles that Plaintiff's commercial vehicle policy had expired did not extend the length of the policy.

Rando v. Gov't Employees Insr. Co. In an automobile insurance claim against defendant-insurance company for injuries sustained in automobile accident with an uninsured motorist, the following question is certified to Supreme Court of Florida: whether, under state law, an automobile insurance policy -- which was executed, issued and delivered in the state to the named insureds residing in the state for a car that is registered and garaged in another state -- may validly provide that uninsured motorist coverage under that policy may not be combined with uninsured motorist coverage provided by a separate automobile policy also issued by the insurer to the named insureds in the state.

District of Columbia

Public Citizen, Inc. v Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin Petition for review of Safety Standard 138 adopted by respondent, requiring new cars to have warning systems for tire under-inflation, is dismissed as petitioner lacks standing to challenge the safety standard.

Nader v. Democratic Nat'l. Comm. In an action alleging a civil conspiracy to prevent Plaintiff from being elected President by forcing him to defend meritless ballot eligibility challenges, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the complaint revealed that Plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations.

California

Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. In an action arising from injuries plaintiff sustained in a vehicle accident caused by the negligent driving of defendant's employee, grant of defendant's motion to reduce by $130,286.90 a jury's special verdict award for plaintiff's past injury-related medical related expenses to $59,691.73 is reversed and remanded where in a personal injury case in which the plaintiff has private health care insurance, the negotiated rate differential is a benefit within the meaning of the collateral source rule, and thus the plaintiff may recover the amount of the differential as part her recovery of economic damages for the past medical expenses she incurred for care and treatment of her injuries.

Cassel v. Sup. Ct. In plaintiff's legal malpractice suit, his request for writ of relief from two orders excluding evidence in favor of his former attorneys is granted and the orders vacated as the communications are a client and his attorney, outside the presence of, and not otherwise communicated to, any opposing party or the mediator, and reveal nothing said or done in the mediation discussion.

Delaware

O'Neal v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. In an insurance liability dispute, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) the minor deviation rule controls the review of whether the deceased permittee's vehicle use fell outside the insurance policy's omnibus clause's coverage; and 2) there are material questions of fact that remain regarding the deceased's permission and use of the vehicle, and the record evidence does not support the trial court's determination that the deceased's use constituted a major deviation as a matter of law.

White v. Liberty Ins. Co. In an action seeking payment under an auto insurance policy, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed, where Plaintiff was not entitled to receive uninsured motorist benefits under her policy because the limits of her coverage were identical to the limits of the tortfeasor's bodily injury coverage.

Florida

AmerUsLife Ins.Co. v. Lait In claim following judgment in favor of petitioner-life insurance company, the Fifth District's decision in AmerUs Life Ins. Co. v. Lait, is quashed where the thirty-day time requirement under rule Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 does not apply when the trial court has already determined entitlement to attorneys' fees and costs, and only reserves jurisdiction to determine the amount.

Wallace v. Dean In a wrongful death claim against respondent in his official capacity as sheriff for assuming duty of care by responding to her 911 call but failing to summon an ambulance, proximately causing decedent's death, Fifth District Court of Appeal in Wallace v. Dean is quashed, decisions in footnote 2 of the present case are approved and reaffirmed to the extent they are consistent with the court's analysis and holding where: 1) the Sheriff undertook and owed the decedent a common-law duty of care; 2) the actions of respondents' deputies were operational in nature; and 3) the plaintiff-petitioner's second amended complaint stated a valid negligence-based wrongful death cause of action which was not barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Illinois

New York

Kassis v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co In an action seeking indemnification from an insurer regarding a slip and fall personal injury action, judgment for Defendant is reversed where a landlord is an additional insured under an insurance policy obtained by his tenant, such that the insurer is obligated to defend and indemnify the landlord in an underlying personal injury lawsuit.

Central Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bemiss In an action to stay an arbitration regarding Plaintiff-Insurer's obligation to settle a personal injury claim, judgment for Defendant is affirmed where consent-to-settle and subrogation-protection provisions in the supplementary uninsured/underinsured endorsement in an automobile liability insurance policy remain in force when an insured has exhausted the available policy limits of a single tortfeasor in a multi-tortfeasor accident.

Texas