Mealey Publications™
TOP STORIES
BOSTON — Concluding that a state wiretapping statute pertains to person-to-person communications, a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court majority concluded that the act did not apply to a plaintiff’s claims that two hospitals tracked her web-browsing activities on their websites, leading it to reverse a trial court’s denial of the hospitals’ motions to dismiss.
PASADENA, Calif. — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Oct. 25 affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s claims against the maker of a sunscreen lotion for allegedly violating California’s unfair competition law (UCL) by stating its product is made with “clear zinc” on the front label when it is actually made with a chemical ingredient, writing that the consumer can’t seek injunctive relief because in the future she will know to check the product’s back label.
LANSING, Mich. — The Michigan Supreme Court on Oct. 28 denied an insured’s request for leave to appeal an appeals court’s ruling that affirmed a lower court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of an insurance agent and agency in its negligence lawsuit arising from its lack of flood coverage.
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on Oct. 25 granted a motion for preliminary approval of a $20 million settlement between Apple Inc. and plaintiffs who sought damages from Apple on behalf of a nationwide class for violating California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other laws based on a battery swelling defect with early-model Apple Watches that in some cases caused watch screens to detach or shatter.
NEW ORLEANS — Addressing questions of law certified to it regarding state law and arbitration agreements embodied in insurance policies, the Louisiana Supreme Court on Oct. 25 ruled that state law prohibits arbitration of insurance disputes, directly contradicting the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ “flawed” findings in two cases involving hurricane insurance claims against foreign and domestic insurers.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed a North Carolina federal judge’s decision to deny related technology companies an antisuit injunction to bar a patent holder from enforcing in the United States injunctions the patent holder obtained in Colombia and Brazil related to standard-essential patents (SEPs), finding that whether the patent holder complied with obligations related to the SEPs is a question before the court.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A panel of judges in the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Oct. 24 affirmed a federal judge’s entry of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) finding that Comcast Cable Communications LLC did not infringe on one of two patents related to internet-based phone calls, but the panel disagreed on whether the judge should have granted Comcast’s post-trial JMOL request on the other patent.
RICHMOND, Va. — The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Oct. 24 affirmed a lower federal court’s dismissal of an insured’s breach of contract lawsuit seeking homeowners insurance coverage for his alleged $170,000 cryptocurrency loss, agreeing with the lower court that the insured’s loss of cryptocurrency is not a “direct physical loss” to trigger policy coverage.
ATLANTA — The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Oct. 24 affirmed a district court’s $690,251.44 judgment for GEICO in its suit against a health care clinic and related parties for allegedly submitting fraudulent no-fault insurance charges, finding that the appellants failed to show that the District Court committed “reversable error” in its determination that the appellants “submitted requests for reimbursement for non-reimbursable services.”
TRENTON, N.J. — The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division on Oct. 24 reversed and remanded a trial court’s ruling on a breach of contract claim after determining that questions of fact exist on whether the insured properly requested that a long-term care insurance policy be reinstated within the policy’s grace period.
RICHMOND, Va. — A federal court properly sanctioned an asbestos law firm for state court lawsuits it filed in an attempt to block litigation between it and another law firm in a fee dispute, and the factors generally used to award prevailing parties attorney fees do not apply in cases where the fees are awarded as a sanction, a Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel said Oct. 24.