Jump To Navigation

News

News

Business

[02/03] Japanese entrepreneurs aim for Silicon Valley
[02/03] Nuke inspectors focus on `unusual' wear on tubes
[02/03] Hungary's Malev airline ceases operations

More...

Construction

[02/03] Rebuilding Together announces 17th Annual Kickoff to Rebuild to Impact Indianapolis Neighborhood
[02/02] NVHomes Announces the Grand Opening of Their Newly Decorated Clifton Park Model Home at Scaleby Farm in West Chester, PA
[02/02] PulteGroup Reports Financial Results for 2011 Fourth Quarter

More...

Insurance

[02/03] Aon Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2011 Results
[02/02] OppsPlace Makes Strong Debut in National Business Market
[02/02] Genworth Financial Announces Fourth Quarter 2011 Results

More...

Litigation

[02/03] World court upholds German immunity in Nazi cases
[02/01] Lawyers in NY Facebook suit spar over fee amount
[02/01] FTC: phone card scam leads to $2.3M settlement

More...

Transportation

[02/03] Expedia Affiliate Network Launches Smart Cross Sell Enabling Airlines to Maximize Online Ancillary Hotel Revenues
[02/03] Ga. House approves transportation funding bill
[02/03] Hungary's Malev airline ceases operations

More...

Case Summaries

Insurance Law

[02/03] Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Roberts
In a suit brought by an insurer seeking a declaratory judgment that it was required to indemnify its insured for no more than 40 percent of a state court judgment because it had covered its insured for no more than 40 percent of the time in which the state court plaintiff was exposed to lead poisoning, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part, where it was correct in allocating the insurer's liability using the pro-rata time on-the-risk, and its decision to use the plaintiff's date of birth as the starting point for the period in which she was exposed to lead poisoning was sound; and 2) reversed in part, where the district court erred in holding the insurer liable for 24 months of coverage rather than 22, since under the insurance contract, coverage ended when the property was sold.

[02/03] Scandinavian Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v. Saint Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co.
The district court's grant of a petition to vacate an arbitral award is reversed, and on remand the district court is instructed to grant a cross-petition to confirm the award, where there was insufficient evidence before the district court on which to base a finding of "evident partiality" within the meaning of the Federal Arbitration Act despite the failure of two arbitrators to disclose their concurrent service as arbitrators in another, arguably similar, arbitration.

[01/30] M & F Fishing, Inc. v. Sea-Pac Insurance Managers, Inc.
In an action by owners and operators of commercial fishing companies alleging violations of the Unfair Competition Law predicated on violations of the Insurance Code, the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is reversed and the matter is remanded, where: 1) the plaintiffs were not entitled to restitution for insurance lawfully placed from admitted carriers; 2) the plaintiffs were not entitled to restitution of premiums paid for nonadmitted coverage; 3) the plaintiffs were barred from recovering restitution of any broker fees based on a violation of Insurance Code section 1764.1 occurring more than four years before they filed suit; 4) the trial court should have granted one defendant's motion for nonsuit for lack of an agency relationship; 5) the trial court properly exercised its discretion when it denied the plaintiffs' motions to amend to add additional parties; and 6) the plaintiffs' entitlement to prejudgment interest was subject to the discretion of the trial court.

[01/27] Hutcherson v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration
In a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that Arizona's Medicaid agency had no right at all to recover from an annuity purchased by a husband so that his institutionalized wife could obtain Medicaid coverage or, alternatively, had no right to recover for any costs incurred for the wife's care after the husband's death, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed, where: 1) the federal Medicaid Act allows states to reach a deceased community spouse's annuity for costs incurred on behalf of an institutionalized spouse; and 2) nothing in the language of the Act was inconsistent with permitting the state agency to recover from the annuity expenses incurred after the husband's death.

More...

Transportation

[01/31] Lane v. Valverde
In a case in which a driver tested above the legal limit for blood alcohol and had his driving privilege suspended by the DMV, the trial court's grant of a petition for a writ of mandate directing the DMV to reinstate the petitioner's driving privilege is reversed, where the blood alcohol testing instrument was not out of compliance with the regulation when the petitioner was tested, even though it may have been out of compliance with 17 Cal. Code Regs. section 1221.4(a)(2)(B) when it was next tested after use on the petitioner.

[01/26] Lopez & Medina Corp. v. Marsh USA, Inc.
On appeal of a rejected cross-motion for summary judgment that argued that an insurance policy's coverage expressly applied to an airline's underlying claims for damages arising from the insured's failure to provide air transportation, as contractually required, to the airline's passengers, the district court's order denying the motion is affirmed, as the phrase "legally obligated to pay as damages" in a commercial general liability policy, which usually covers only tort claims, does not also provide coverage for claims in an underlying action arising out of and related to a contract between the parties.

[01/25] Vitkievicz v. Valverde
In a challenge to the temporary revocation of a driver's license, the trial court's dismissal of a petition for writ of mandate after the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend is affirmed, where: 1) the petition was not timely filed; and 2) regardless of whether the demurrer was timely filed, the trial court in the interests of justice could rule on the merits of the statute of limitations defense, and any procedural defect with respect to such an untimely pleading does not affect the substantial rights of the parties and therefore is not grounds for reversal.

[01/24] Mabey Bridge & Shore, Inc. v. Schoch
In a suit by a corporation engaged in the business of supplying temporary steel bridges for construction projects, seeking a declaration that the Pennsylvania Steel Products Procurement Act, as interpreted and enforced by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), is unconstitutional, and requesting a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining PennDOT from prohibiting the use of the company's temporary bridges on its projects, the district court's grant of summary judgment against the company on all its claims is affirmed, where: 1) the state Steel Act was not preempted by the federal Buy America Act and related federal regulations; 2) the Steel Act is not unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause; 3) PennDOT's actions did not violate the Contract Clause; and 4) PennDOT's application of the Steel Act did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

More...

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.