Case Summaries
ERISA
[02/01]
Muto v. CBS Corp.
In a putative class action complaint brought in New York by Pennsylvania residents against the plaintiffs' former employer and the employer's pension plan for benefits alleged to be due under ERISA, the district court's dismissal of the complaint as time-barred is affirmed, where: 1) the district court was correct in applying New York's borrowing statute directing it to look to Pennsylvania law for the applicable statute of limitations; and 2) plaintiffs' claims were untimely under Pennsylvania law.
[01/26]
The DIRECTV Group, Inc. v. US
In a case involving the calculation and payment of segment closing adjustments associated with a corporation's sale of certain business units that included the transfer of defined benefit pension plans, the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims granting summary judgment in favor of the corporation is affirmed, where: 1) the Claims Court did not err by calculating segment closing adjustments based on the assets and liabilities of the entire segment, rather than only the assets and liabilities that the corporation retained; and 2) the Claims Court correctly determined that the corporation's segment closing obligations could be satisfied by the cost savings realized by the government in the successor contracts.
[01/23]
Leeson v. Transamerica Disability Income Plan
In an action under ERISA challenging the termination of the plaintiff's long-term disability benefits that was dismissed by the district court for lack of standing to pursue an ERISA claim and thus lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, the dismissal is vacated and the case remanded, as the plaintiff's status as a participant for purposes of ERISA was a substantive element of his claim, not a prerequisite for subject matter jurisdiction.
[01/11]
Scibelli v. Prudential Insurance Company
In an appeal from an order of the district court dismissing, on summary judgment, plaintiff's ERISA claim, 29 U.S.C. section 1132, order is vacated where based on the relevant evidence, the Group Policy language, and the unexplained inconsistency in the Plan Administrator's award of benefits, the deceased beneficiary was "totally disabled" under the terms of subject Group Policy when he stopped working, and therefore, his estate is entitled to the proceeds of a group life insurance policy.
[01/11]
Fortier v. Principal Life Insurance Co.
In an appeal from an order of the district court dismissing, on summary judgment, plaintiff's ERISA complaint for further benefits under a group disability policy, judgment is affirmed where the plan administrator reasonably interpreted the policy so that plaintiff's claim of certain extraordinary expenses as deductions on his federal income tax returns made such expenses ordinary and necessary and thus were deductible from his gross predisability earnings.
[12/23]
Milgram v. The Orthopedic Associates Defined Contribution Pension Plan
In a suit under ERISA seeking to recover funds that were erroneously removed from an individual's defined contribution pension fund account and credited to that of his former wife, the district court's judgment against the plan is affirmed, where: 1) ERISA’s anti-alienation provision and other provisions of federal and state law do not prohibit enforcement of the judgment; and 2) the inclusion of accumulated earnings and prejudgment interest in the award was permitted by the plan contract.
[12/07]
Maher v. Massachusetts General Hospital Long Term Disability Plan
In an appeal from a judgment of district court upholding termination of ERISA benefits, matter is remanded for further inquiry where the plan administrator's decision is not fully justified on the insufficient record.
[12/01]
Plasterers' Local Union No. 96 v. Pepper
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court in favor of plaintiff-trustees in an action for breach of fiduciary duty under the ERISA, judgment is reversed where the court erred in its determination of liability, its method of calculating damages, and the award of attorneys' fees.
[11/29]
Milgram v. Orthopedic Associates
In an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a complaint to recover certain improperly disbursed ERISA funds, 29 U.S.C. section 1132(a)(1)-(3), judgment is affirmed where enforcement of the judgment is not prohibited by the terms of the pension agreement or ERISA’s anti-alienation provision, and the district court’s award of accumulated earnings inconsistent with Dobson v. Hartford Financial Services, 389 F.3d 386 (2d Cir. 2004).
More...
Injury & Tort 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.
[02/02]
Lore v. City of Syracuse
In a case alleging illegal retaliation against a city police officer under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (HRL) because of her complaints of gender discrimination, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part where the city's arguments regarding the availability of reputation damages, evidentiary and instructional errors, and excessive damages for emotional distress presented no basis for disturbing the judgment; and 2) vacated in part where there was merit in plaintiff's contentions regarding the liability of the city's corporation counsel, and the district court erred in dismissing her principal gender discrimination claims under the HRL on the basis that she had suffered no materially adverse employment action.
[02/01]
Maxton v. Western States Metals
In a suit alleging negligence and strict liability causes of action based on personal injuries as a result of working with metal products manufactured by the defendants and supplied to the plaintiff's employer, the district court's judgment in favor of the defendants on demurrers is affirmed, where: 1) the metal products involved were not inherently dangerous, and no other circumstances justified imposing liability on the defendants for the plaintiff's injuries under the component parts doctrine; 2) the plaintiff did not meet his burden of showing there was a reasonable possibility that the deficiencies in the complaint could be cured by amendment.
[01/30]
Sennett v. US
In a suit by a photojournalist seeking money damages against the federal government for FBI agents' alleged violations of the Privacy Protection Act (PPA) stemming from a search of her apartment, the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the United States is affirmed, where: 1) the facts as alleged showed that the officers had probable cause to believe that the plaintiff was involved in criminal activity; and 2) the search of her home related to the investigation of that activity, so that the "suspect exception" to the PPA applied.
[01/27]
AE v. County of Tulare
In a suit arising from the sexual assault of a minor by his foster brother, alleging against the county that ran the foster home a claim under 42 USC section 1983 for deliberate indifference and claims for negligence pursuant to California statutes, the district court's dismissal of all claims against the county is reversed, where: 1) the district court abused its discretion when it denied leave to amend the complaint to cure defects in the section 1983 claim; 2) the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the derivative liability claims against the county with prejudice and without leave to amend when it granted leave to amend as to the allegations regarding defendant county social workers.
[01/27]
C9 Ventures v. SVC-West, L.P.
In a personal injury suit in which a lessor of helium-filled tanks used to inflate festive balloons cross-complained against the lessee to enforce an indemnification provision on the back of an unsigned invoice, the trial court's judgment in favor of the lessor and award of attorney fees to it is reversed, where: 1) the lessee did not manifest assent to the terms on the back of the unsigned invoice by course of dealing or course of performance, or under basic contract law; 2) the lessee did not sign the invoice or otherwise expressly agree to its terms; 3) an unsigned invoice itself is not a contract, and repeated delivery of a particular form does not make the form part of the parties' agreement; 4) payment of the invoice merely constituted the lessee's performance of the obligation under the oral contract to pay for the rental of the helium-filled tanks; and 5) assuming the transaction was a sale of goods covered by division 2 of the California Commercial Code, the indemnification provision was not an additional term of the contract under section 2207 of the Commercial Code.
[01/26]
Munoz v. Sociedad Espanola de Auxilio Mutuo y Beneficiencia de Puerto Rico
In a retaliation case under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and Puerto Rico's general tort statute known as Article 1802, in which the jury found for the plaintiff, the district court's denial of the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial is affirmed, where: 1) the evidence presented at trial was enough to support the jury's finding of retaliation; 2) the appellants waived defenses based on the statute of limitations, the exclusive remedies bar, and a purportedly erroneous jury instruction; 3) the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the requisite fault or negligence to sustain an Article 1802 claim; and 4) the awards of damages and attorney fees were proper.
[01/26]
Allstate Property and Casualty Ins. Co. v. Squires
In an action by an insurance company seeking a declaratory judgment that it was not obligated to pay uninsured motorist benefits to a policyholder, the district court's order granting the insurer's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing counterclaims is reversed, where in light of the insurer's concession for purposes of its motion that the accident giving rise to the claim was caused by a box dropped from an unidentified vehicle, the accident arose out of the maintenance, ownership, or use of an uninsured vehicle, so that it was covered under the insurance policy.
[01/26]
Tverberg v. Fillner Construction, Inc.
In a suit brought by a husband and wife based on injuries sustained after the husband, an independent contractor, was injured on a worksite on which the defendant was operating as the general contractor, judgment against the plaintiffs is reversed, where: 1) the trial court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on a breach of regulatory duty theory of recovery, as the defendant delegated its obligation to comply with Cal-OSHA workplace regulations to the plaintiff; but 2) the trial court erred in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' retained control theory of direct liability, since the plaintiffs offered sufficient evidence of a triable issue on affirmative contribution.
More...
Workers' Comp
[01/11]
Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid
In an appeal from a judgment of the appeals court vacating an administrative dismissal of respondent's Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) claim for benefits as a surviving spouse, judgment is affirmed where a claimant seeking benefits under the OCSLA must establish a substantial nexus between the injury and extractive operations on the shelf.
[12/13]
In the Matter of Elrac, Inc. v. Exum
In an appeal from a judgment of the appellate division permitting arbitration of a claim by plaintiff-employee for uninsured motorist benefits, judgment is affirmed because a self-insured employer whose employee is involved in an automobile accident may be liable to that employee for uninsured motorist benefits, notwithstanding the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law.
[10/31]
County of Kern v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court affirming an administrative decision in a claim for worker's compensation, judgment is affirmed where a volunteer firefighter with a local nonprofit firefighting organization was a county employee for purposes of workers' compensation coverage under Labor Code section 3361.1.
[09/13]
Motheral v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
In a petition for review of a judgment of the defendant-Board denying reconsideration of an administrative decision calculating petitioner's disability benefits based solely on his full-time employment at minimum wage, Lab. Code section 4653, judgment is reversed where section 4454 mandates the inclusion of the market value of petitioner's living quarters, utilities, and car allowance.
[08/11]
Baker v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd.
In dispute involving the proper calculation of cost of living adjustments under Labor Code section 4659(c), judgment of the appeals court is reversed where through the operative language of Section 4659(c), the Legislature intended that such adjustments be calculated and applied prospectively commencing on the January 1 following the date on which the injured worker first becomes entitled to receive, and actually begins receiving, such benefit payments.
[04/20]
Edward Carey Const. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund
In an action for breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing after denial of workers compensation benefits by defendant, summary judgment in favor of defendant is reversed because causes of action claimed by plaintiff are not barred by workers compensation exclusivity.
[04/18]
U.S. Fidelity v. Lee Investments
In diversity action by plaintiff-insurance company seeking rescission of a workers compensation policy, judgment of the district court denying motion to dismiss is affirmed because court had subject matter jurisdiction where exclusive jurisdiction was not vested by state law in a compensation agency.
[04/11]
Robidoux v. Muholland
In an injury and tort action arising from injuries plaintiff suffered while working at a construction site in Rhode Island, summary judgment in favor of defendant is reversed where Massachusetts Workers Compensation Act applies and does not bar claims.
[03/31]
California Shock Trauma Air Rescue v. State Compensation Ins. Fund
In an dispute arising from several state-law claims and involving the issue of whether the expectation of a federal defense, without more, is sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction over state-law claims, dismissal by district court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where causes of action are based entirely on state claims, each of which does not, on its face, turn on a federal issue.
More...
|
