(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 Second Circuit) - Held that an automobile insurance policyholder who was unhappy with the handling of her claim for the total loss of her vehicle did not have to submit the dispute to a panel of appraisers, as set forth in the policy. Affirmed the denial of the insurer's motion to compel appraisal in this proposed class action.

(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.

(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) - 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 Fifth Circuit) - Addressed insurance coverage issues in a securities fraud case. Held that the district court abused its discretion in approving a settlement agreement and so-called bar orders. Vacated and remanded for further proceedings, in this case involving a financial firm's massive Ponzi scheme.

(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 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 Ninth Circuit) - In a diversity insurance coverage action, District Court erred in not applying the specialized meaning of terms in an insurance contract, as required by the California Civil Code (here “war” and “warlike action”). Summary judgment in favor of insurer overturned.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A company found, during a random audit by the Indiana Department of Insurance, to have committed hundreds of regulatory violations that entered into an agreement to pay a fine and relinquish its licenses could not subsequently sue the Department's commissioner alleging discrimination for their out-of-state residency without providing a valid reason to void the agreement.

(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) - Certified. The state Supreme Court was asked how they would interpret the subrogation waiver in common form contracting agreements, a question that has split courts nationwide.

(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 DC Circuit) - Vacated. A district court conclusion that executive orders regarding relations between the federal government and its employees was unlawful was in error. The district court lacked jurisdiction.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed and remanded to enter summary adjudication for Plaintiff as to her retaliation claim and punitive damages, but denied discrimination and harassment claims.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was cited for wage and hour violations. Plaintiff contended that it could require its employees to work “on-duty” meal periods less than 30 minutes. The appeals court found that an employer must provide meal periods of at least 30 minutes regardless of whether they are on-duty or off-duty.

(California Court of Appeal) - Dismissed part of appeal and affirmed part. Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Defendant alleging wage and hour violations and a unfair competition law claim (UCL). Defendants sought to compel arbitration. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiffs individual claims, allowed the arbitrator to decide the class action claims, and denied the motion as to the UCL claim. The appeals court found that the motion that granted arbitration could not be appealed and found no error in the denial of arbitration for the UCL claim.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court's grant of summary judgment to a County Veterans Assistance Commission was affirmed in a case where their superintendent was banned from the administration building after learning that he'd had a PTSD incident in which he threatened a police officer and kicked out the windows of a squad car.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court's grant of a defense motion for summary judgment in an Age Discrimination Employment Act claim was proper because the plaintiff failed to raise a genuine question of material fact about the company's reasons for firing him during a period in which the company halved its workforce and fired thousands of workers.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed denial of motion to compel arbitration. An employee bringing a Private Attorney General’s Act claim may not be compelled to arbitrate that portion of the claim that seeks to recover underpaid wages.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A lawsuit alleging unequal pay due to gender discrimination and retaliation that lost on all counts at jury trial was affirmed. The jury instructions and verdict forms did not prejudice the case.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part. Minor league baseball players seeking class status in an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act appeal the denial of class certification in Arizona and Florida. The panel held certification is appropriate and consistent with “the great public policy” embodied by the FLSA.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A former employee alleging discrimination could be compelled to arbitrate his claims because he didn't opt out of the company's arbitration agreement.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacated. Partial enforcement to produce discovery documents in an equal protection claim vacated, where Plaintiffs did not have standing. There is no legally protected interest under which the board members of the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority can assert a claim over disparate treatment compared to other municipalities regarding the passage of S.B. 2162.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued alleging a hostile work environment and retaliatory firing. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Defendant. The appeals court found that Plaintiff was discharged during a probationary period and that he lacks evidence to take the matter to a jury.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part. The panel affirmed Los Angeles County was not entitled to 11th Amendment immunity because the County was not an arm of the state when it administered the In-Home Supportive Services program. The court reversed on the collective period’s effective date.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiffs, employees of Defendant, signed an agreement with Defendant requiring binding arbitration of employment disputes after the complaint was filed. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration agreeing with Plaintiff that the arbitration agreement referred to future claims not the past ones brought by Plaintiff against Defendant. The appeals court disagreed stating that the agreement to arbitrate was clear and there was no qualifying language as to past or future events.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The district court dismissal of a suit for failure to exhaust remedies was vacated because the claims of discrimination had been exhausted before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

(CT Court of Appeals) - AC 42180

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that local water districts were not entitled to be reimbursed by the state for the cost of complying with unfunded state mandates to improve water service. The water districts argued that reimbursement was necessary because the passage of Proposition 218 had limited their authority to levy fees. Disagreeing, the California Third Appellate District concluded that their authority to levy fees had not changed. The panel affirmed the trial court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the dismissal of a telecommunication company's lawsuit seeking a refund of California sales and use taxes. Held that the tax exclusion for telephone lines does not extend to pre-installation component parts that may one day be incorporated into completed telephone systems.