Mealey Publications™
TOP STORIES
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In Jan. 20 oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court on the parameters for calculating liability for withdrawing from a multiemployer pension plan, employers urged the high court to rule that there is a strict deadline for actuarial assumptions, and multiemployer plan trustees and the government as amicus curiae countered that the statutory text, standard actuarial practice and policy concerns all cut against that position.
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Alaska and the Trump administration on Jan. 16 filed separate briefs in support of motions to dismiss a lawsuit brought by environmental groups that are challenging President Donald J. Trump’s executive order that reopened areas of the outer continental shelf (OCS) for hydraulic fracturing. The state argues that the case should be dismissed for lack of standing because the plaintiffs have not alleged imminent and particular harm in the District of Alaska. The Trump administration, which insists it has sovereign immunity, contends that jurisdiction is lacking.
NEW ORLEANS — The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Jan. 19 dismissed “as frivolous” an insured’s appeal of a lower federal court’s dismissal of a lawsuit seeking coverage for flood and property damages caused by hurricanes Zeta and Ida, rejecting the insured’s attempt to proceed in forma pauperis.
DETROIT — A split Michigan appellate court on Jan. 16 affirmed a lower court’s ruling granting summary disposition to an insurer in an auto accident personal injury protection (PIP) coverage dispute, holding that the lower court did not err in finding that a policy application question regarding driver’s license suspension was not ambiguous and that the insurer was entitled to rescind the policy due to the insured’s material misrepresentation.
CINCINNATI —The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Jan. 16 affirmed a lower federal court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of an insurer in an insured’s lawsuit alleging that the insurer’s misrepresentations that it had full coverage makes the insurer liable for $1.3 million in code-compliance costs that exceeded the policy limit, concluding that the insured failed to demonstrate that the insurer “owed a separate-and-distinct duty to advise” or that the insured “reasonably relied on” the insurer’s alleged misrepresentations.
HONOLULU — A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Jan. 16 affirmed the dismissal of the Republican National Committee (RNC) lawsuit against Google LLC for violating the state’s common-carrier statute and California’s unfair competition law (UCL) by diverting its fundraising emails to users’ spam folders.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 16 granted certiorari to a man who was convicted of armed robbery through evidence obtained via a geofence warrant, which culls location information from users’ mobile devices, agreeing to address whether such warrants violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 16 granted a bioequivalent pharmaceutical maker’s petition for a writ of certiorari, agreeing to consider its challenge to the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ finding that the petitioner’s “skinny label” generic version of a prescription cardiovascular medication constituted reverse infringement (Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., et al., No. 24-889, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 16 granted certiorari in a case that involves a dispute over whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state law failure-to-warn claims based on the content of pesticide product labels, related to the herbicide Roundup.
BOSTON — A Massachusetts appeals court on Jan. 15 held that a homeowners insurer owes no indemnification for an underlying $300,000 personal injury judgment, reversing a lower court in concluding that the man who the underlying judgment was awarded against is not a member of his grandmother’s household and, as a result, is not insured under the policy at issue.
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on Jan. 15 granted in part and denied in part Crocs Inc.’s motion to dismiss a putative class action brought against it by consumers who say Crocs violated California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other laws by representing Crocs-brand shoes as weather-resistant when they in fact can shrink due to heat, finding the plaintiffs insufficiently alleged their fraud-based claims.