(United States First Circuit) - Affirming bankruptcy court and district court rulings that a transaction involving the debt-financed purchase of a family owned leather manufacturer was not a fraudulent conveyance and did not amount to a violation of the fiduciary duties of the company's directors because the factual determinations were not clearly erroneous and supported the court's conclusions.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that shareholders were liable for taxes on proceeds from the sale of a close corporation. The Internal Revenue Service sued the shareholders, claiming they violated Arizona's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act by engaging in a complex series of stock and asset transactions that resulted in creating a debtor company unable to pay the tax bill. Agreeing with the IRS's position, the Ninth Circuit reversed a decision of the Tax Court and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the IRS.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a case in which a minority shareholder sued a majority shareholder, reversed and remanded with directions to reinstitute a special proceeding under Corporations Code section 2000.

(California Court of Appeal) - Revived a lawsuit accusing a board member of a nonprofit organization of self-dealing and other misconduct. Held that the plaintiff, also a board member, had legal standing even though the board of directors subsequently removed her from the board. Reversed a dismissal.

(NY Supreme Court) - 2019-06933 (Index No. 508155/15)

(NY Supreme Court) - 2018–11536 (Index No. 51923/17)

(NY Supreme Court) - 2019–04234 Index No. 523834/18

(NY Supreme Court) - 528980

(NY Supreme Court) - 2020–03456

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed that an insurance company timely removed an insurance coverage case to federal court by filing a notice of removal within the statutory 30-day time limit. The clock began to run only when the insurance company actually received the insured's complaint, not when its statutorily designated agent did.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a subcontractor hired to install utility boxes in a residential subdivision had a contractual duty to defend the developer from a personal injury claim alleging that the plaintiff fell into a defectively constructed utility box. Reversed and remanded.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment in favor of a medical supplier in its lawsuit against a health insurance company that refused to pay for covered services. The supplier, which provides equipment and staffing to doctors who perform surgery in their own offices, prevailed in a jury trial.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that an insurance company did not have to arbitrate a former employee's claims before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), an entity with which the company had severed ties. The FINRA arbitration code no longer applied to the company, even though the employee had once been registered as a securities industry representative of the company.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a policyholder who successfully sued a life insurance company was not entitled to an award of attorney fees. Reversed the fee award, in this diversity jurisdiction case.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an insurance company could not bring a subrogation claim against its insured's tenant (a furniture manufacturing business) for amounts paid out under a fire insurance policy, even if the tenant was negligent. Affirmed a summary judgment ruling.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that homeowners were not insured for their home's allegedly defective concrete foundation. The gradual deterioration of their still‐standing basement walls did not constitute a covered "collapse" under their homeowner's insurance policy. Affirmed a dismissal.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an insurance company did not abuse its discretion in denying disability benefits to an attorney who stopped working due to intractable migraines. Affirmed the judgment below in this ERISA case.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an insurance coverage dispute, revived an industrial plant's claim that the insurer should have provided coverage when broken metal brackets resulted in a shutdown of the entire facility. Reversed a summary judgment ruling.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an insurance dispute following an explosion and fire on an oil rig in Ohio, addressed arbitrability and personal jurisdiction issues. Affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision below.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an insurance company was not liable for bad faith for failing to settle a medical malpractice claim for the policy limit. Affirmed a JMOL against the claims of an outpatient surgical center.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In a dispute over life insurance coverage, held that a policy exclusion was applicable because a man's death from engaging in an act known as autoerotic asphyxiation qualified as intentionally self-inflicted injury.

(California Court of Appeal) - Judgment reversed and remanded. Defendant prevailed at an administrative hearing and civil penalties were imposed against Mercury. Mercury filed a writ of mandate, which the trial court granted. Appellate court held that the writ was issued in error, because the trial court did not use the proper standard of review, failed to give the proper presumption of correctness, and failed to place the burden of proof on Mercury.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an insurance company did not have to indemnify an insured for the cost of cleaning up groundwater contamination at its industrial sites. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer, in this case involving the policy's pollution exclusion clause.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a homeowner could not proceed with a lawsuit against an insurance company related to a claim for flood damage. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a punitive damages award against an automobile insurance company for unreasonably delaying payment to a policyholder after a car crash.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a dispute between a homeowner and a property insurance company over an allegedly misdirected check, held that the homeowner had no cause of action under a Uniform Commercial Code provision dealing with negotiable instruments. Affirmed summary judgment against the homeowner.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a county government's insurers had a duty to defend a civil rights lawsuit relating to the murder convictions of three innocent men who were later exonerated. The county contended that the insurance policies were triggered even though the wrongful acts occurred before the policy period. Affirmed that there was a duty to defend.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an insurance coverage dispute arising out of a car crash, construed Mississippi's Uninsured Motorist Act. Held that the insurer was entitled to summary judgment in this diversity action.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a construction company's surety (an insurance company) may not augment its contractual indemnification rights with the ancient doctrine of quia timet -- equitable protection from probable future harm. The construction company allegedly had gone belly up on a government project. Affirmed summary judgment against the surety's claim.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an insurance coverage case, held that a homeowner delayed too long before bringing suit over a flood insurance claim. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer, holding that the suit was time-barred.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an insurance company owed a duty to defend a general contractor who was being sued by homeowners over alleged roofing defects. The case involved a commercial general liability insurance policy issued to a roofing subcontractor. Reversed the decision below.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that an insurance company may not proceed with a negligence lawsuit against an adjuster for allegedly botching a claim for hurricane damage. The lawsuit was not filed within the statute of limitations.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The subject of a legal judgment sought to pursue the doctrine of estoppel to compel their insurer to pay out on the judgment against them from a decade before the policy's active date. They suffered no prejudice from the insurer's action and their case was dismissed.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court's entry of summary judgment for a company on a claim of breach of contract against an insurer was overturned because of the court's interpretation of the clause "as reported" to mean a report had been made, rather than referencing events that had already occurred at the time of the drafting.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile that was involved in an accident. He was not a party to the insurance policy that covered the car, but was an unnamed additional insured. Plaintiff attempted to contact Defendant, the insurer of the car, but was unsuccessful. Plaintiff then reached his own settlement with at-fault driver of the other car. Defendant refused to agree to the settlement and denied coverage to Plaintiff stating that under the terms of the policy, Plaintiff had to have approval from them before settling. The trial court found that Plaintiff was not a party to the insurance contract, did not know the terms of the policy and could not be held to those terms.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reverse and remand. Defendant advanced the theory that its insurance policy did not cover injuries caused by drunk driving collisions, because they are not “accidents”. The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendant, insurance company, stating that the intentional decision to drive while intoxicated meant the collision was not an accident. The appeals court held that there was nothing in Texas law that would construe the term “accident” in the manner put forth by the Defendant.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Certified Question. The panel certified the question of state law to the Nevada Supreme Court asking whether an insurer is entitled reimbursement of costs already expended in defense of its insured where a determination has been made that the insurer owed no duty to defend and there was an agreement requiring reimbursement, but with no reservation of rights.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff, a Connecticut attorney, sued Defendants, a group of title insurance companies, for violating a Connecticut law that allows only Connecticut attorneys to act as title agents in the state. The original complaint contained class action allegations under the Class Action Fairness Act, but Plaintiff removed all class-action allegations in a subsequent complaint. The district court held that without the class-act allegations, it no longer had jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim on the grounds that the claimed agreement entered into with Defendant had not be approved by the Defendant’s governing board as required by New York Town Law, hence there was no valid and enforceable contract.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. An insurer was not liable for contractual and statutory violations arising from the denial of a commercial property insurance claim. The suit was untimely because re-investigation by the insurer did not toll the accrual of the cause of action.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. All insurance claims were properly denied because while the insured gave timely notice of later claims they failed to give notice of an initial claim within the policy's one year coverage limitation.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. An insurer had to replace the siding on an entire building whose south and west sides were damaged by a storm because the old siding was no longer available and the new siding didn't match.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A subcontractor did not owe a duty to indemnify a company for its expenditures in labor and materials in a construction project.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. An insurer that did not receive timely notice of an accident could not be compelled to provide coverage.

(Supreme Court of California) - Remanded. The Plaintiff purchased an insurance policy from Defendant that covered pollution conditions. The policy required notice of any pollution condition and written consent before incurring obligations. Defendant denied coverage for pollution conditions that were found at a dormitory construction site because the policy notice and consent provisions were violated. The Court held that the notice-prejudice rule, which allows insureds to proceed against their insurer even if notice is late as long as it does not substantially prejudice the insurer, is a fundamental public policy of California and applies to consent provisions in first-party liability coverage and not third-party coverage. Remanded to the Ninth Circuit to determine type of policy involved.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed and Remanded. The Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal and reversed a District Court order in the case of the dismissal of a tenured professor. The professor's guilty plea to felony charges relating to the dismissal were serious cause sufficient to support his firing.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The trial court's determination that the County Board of Supervisors' elimination of a longtime county Solid Waste Enforcement Officer's position was retaliation was upheld. The employee was running for sheriff as an Independent and the Board preferred Democrats.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Petition denied. A company's petition for review of an administrative law judge's finding of violations and imposition of a monetary penalty against a poultry processing plant following a worker injury was upheld.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court's dismissal of claims for interference and retaliation in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act in the case of a man reprimanded for swearing, quoting the bible, and generally being abrasive in colleague interactions.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The dismissal of a suit alleging that protracted employment termination proceedings violated the substantive due process rights of a Sheriff's Office employee following their DUI arrest was proper because it did not meet the high standard for making out substantive due process claims.