BROOKLYN LAW REVIEW. ADMIRALTY, FEDERALISM, AND THE NEW YORK DIRECT ACTION STATUTE: SEAMEN'S RIGHTS TO ENFORCE JONES ACT JUDGMENTS Richard Alexander*

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "BROOKLYN LAW REVIEW. ADMIRALTY, FEDERALISM, AND THE NEW YORK DIRECT ACTION STATUTE: SEAMEN'S RIGHTS TO ENFORCE JONES ACT JUDGMENTS Richard Alexander*"

Transcription

1 BROOKLYN LAW REVIEW Volume 49 Winter 1983 Number 2 ADMIRALTY, FEDERALISM, AND THE NEW YORK DIRECT ACTION STATUTE: SEAMEN'S RIGHTS TO ENFORCE JONES ACT JUDGMENTS Richard Alexander* Seamen injured or taken ill while in the service of a vessel have traditionally been entitled to wages for the duration of the voyage and medical care until they have recovered. 1 The general maritime law, however, precluded seamen from recovering for personal injuries caused by the negligence 2 of either the master of a vessel or a member of its crew. 8 This obstacle was overcome * B.A., Ohio Wesleyan University, 1966; J.D., University of Chicago, 1969; Member, California and Michigan Bars; Diplomate, National Board of Trial Advocates; Partner, The Boccardo Law Firm, San Jose, California. 1 The crew members of a vessel have a right to "maintenance" and "cure" from their employer when an illness or injury sustained aboard ship is treated ashore. See Vella v. Ford Motor Co., 421 U.S. 1, 3 (1975). "Maintenance," the cost of food and lodging, and "cure," the cost of medical care, see Mahamras v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 475 F.2d 166, 172 (2d Cir. 1973), are substitutes for the care the seaman could have received aboard ship. Maintenance and cure are granted regardless of fault, see Vella v. Ford Motor Co., 421 U.S. 1, 4 (1976), and are payable until the seaman's illness or injury is diagnosed as permanent and incurable, id. at 3. See generally G. GIL- MORE & C. BLACK, THE LAW OF ADMIRALTY (1957); Shields, Seamen's Rights to Recover Maintenance and Cure Benefits, 55 TUL. L. REV (1981). 9 Although negligence was unavailable as a theory of recovery, seaman could still obtain compensation under the admiralty doctrine of "unseaworthiness." This doctrine imposes a duty upon shipowners to provide safe working conditions, that is, a "seaworthy" vessel. See 2 M. MORRIS, THE LAW OF SEAMEN (3d ed. 1970). Any defective conditions of a ship that causes injury gives rise to an unseaworthiness claim; negligence need not be proven. See Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 93 (1946). The Supreme Court has greatly expanded the duty to provide a seaworthy vessel in recent years, see, e.g., Waldron v. Moore-McCormack Lines, 386 U.S. 724 (1967) (unseaworthiness includes owner's failure to provide sufficient number of crewmen), and some members of the Court have criticized this expansion as essentially imposing strict liability on shipowners. See Gutierrez v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 373 U.S. 206, 216 (1963) (Harlan, J., dissenting). 8 The rights of injured seamen under the general maritime law were summarized in 179

2 180 BROOKLYN LAW REVIEW [Vol. 49: 179 in 1920 by the passage of the Jones Act. 4 Intended as a remedial statute to expand the admiralty's protection of its wards/ the Jones Act expressly authorizes recovery for personal injuries arising out of negligence occurring in the course of a seaman's employment. 6 Although a seaman's right to recover for maritime torts is firmly established, 7 his ability to enforce a judgment obtained the famous four "propositions" set forth by the Supreme Court in The Osceola, 189 U.S. 158, 173 (1903). The first two propositions described the seaman's right to maintenance and cure benefits, and his right to a seaworthy vessel. Id. In the third proposition, however, the Court held that seamen were subject to the fellow servant rule, and thus were unable to recover for the negligence of crew members. Id. The fourth proposition expressly limited the seaman's recovery to maintenance and cure. Id. In 1915, Congress first attempted to provide a right of recovery for negligence by simply abolishing the fellow servant rule. See Act of Mar. 4,1915, ch. 153, 20, 38 Stat. 1164, 1185 (codified as amended at 46 U.S.C. 688 (1976)). However, three years later, the Court held that Congress had misread The Osceola to mean that the fellow servant rule was the only impediment to recovery for negligence and that the Act of 1915 did not alter the fourth proposition of The Osceola, that the general maritime law prohibited recovery for the negligence of crew members. See Chelentis v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., 247 U.S. 372, 381 (1918). Congress enacted the Jones Act in order to overcome this holding. See G. GILMORE & C. BLACK, supra note 1, at Merchant Marine Act of 1920, ch. 250, 33, 41 Stat. 988, 1007 (codified at 46 U.S.C. 688 (1976)). The Jones Act provides in relevant part: Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply; and in case of the death of any seaman as a result of any such personal injury the personal representative of such seaman may maintain an action for damages at law with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States conferring or regulating the right of action for death in the case of railway employees shall be applicable. 46 U.S.C. 688 (1976). ' See, e.g., Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v. McAllister, 337 U.S. 783, 790 (1949) ("The Jones Act was welfare legislation that created new rights in seamen for damages... land] is entitled to a liberal construction to accomplish ita benificent purposes."); Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U.S. 239, 248 (1942) ("[The Jones Act] is to be liberally construed to carry out its full purpose, which was to enlarge admiralty's protection to its wards."); Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Smith, 305 U.S. 424, 431 (1939) (because seamen are the wards of admiralty, "remedial legislation for [their] benefit and protection... has been liberally construed"). Accord The Arizona v. Anelich, 298 U.S. 110, 123 (1936); United Continental Tuna Corp. v. United States, 650 F.2d 569, 573 (9th Cir. 1977). * See note 4 supra. The Jones Act also provides a cause of action for wrongful death, see 46 U.S.C. 688 (1976), which had previously been unavailable unless afforded by a state or foreign wrongful death act, see Edelman, Recovery for Wrongful Death Under the General Maritime Law, 55 TUL. L. REV. 1123, 1128 (1981). 7 See generally G. GILMORE & C. BLACK, supra note 1, at

3 1983] SEAMEN'S RIGHTS 181 under the Jones Act has not received commensurate federal protection. 8 The absence of a federal policy in this area has proven especially troublesome in New York, as the application of provisions of the New York Insurance Law effectively bars the enforcement of Jones Act judgments under certain conditions. Because New York is the home of numerous shipping companies and their maritime insurers, application of its Insurance Law at the expense of injured seamen substantially undermines the remedial policies of the Jones Act. This article examines how the New York Insurance Law operates to undercut a seaman's Jones Act rights. 9 It explores the historical origin of the New York law, and addresses the validity of the reasons offered in its support. 10 Finally, it examines the basis for the federal courts' reluctance to interfere with state regulation of maritime insurance," the underlying cause of a seaman's inability to vindicate fully his Jones Act rights under New York law. I. THE PROBLEM: NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW AND THE EXEMP TION OF A DIRECT ACTION AGAINST MARINE INSURERS An injured seaman's difficulty in collecting a Jones Act judgment stems from New York's irregular treatment of insurers. Section 167(1) of the New York Insurance Law 12 obligates insurers to include in their policies a clause providing that the insolvency of the insured will not release the insurer from liability under the policy. 13 It also requires the inclusion of a provision affording a right of direct action against the insurer in the event that a judgment against the insured remains unsatisfied for thirty days. 14 Seamen, however, have no such right of action against a marine insurer under the Insurance Law; a maze of statutory provisions specifically exempt marine insurers from the obligation to provide a right of direct action in their contracts. Section 167(4) of the New York Insurance Law is the * See notes and accompanying text infra. See notes and accompanying text infra. 10 See notes and accompanying text infra. 11 See notes and accompanying text infra. " N.Y. INS. LAW 167 (McKinney 1966 & Supp ). 18 Id. 167(l)(a). " Id. 167(l)(b).

4 182 BROOKLYN LAW REVIEW [Vol. 49: 179 source of this exemption. 18 The New York courts have consistently recognized that section 167(4) precludes a judgment creditor from bringing a direct action against a marine insurer. 16 Although this preclusive effect is not limited to Jones Act plaintiffs, two recent federal decisions illustrate how seamen have suffered from the application of the statute. In Ahmed v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Association, 11 injured seamen sought recovery in a California state court for personal injuries sustained while in the employ of three shipping companies, collectively known as Amercargo. 18 The seamen obtained default judgments, but the judgments went unsatisfied because of Amercargo's intervening bankruptcy. 19 After submitting their judg- 15 Section 167(4) provides that the provisions of 167 generally, including the right of direct action, "shall not apply... to the kinds of insurances set forth in paragraph (c) of subsection two of section one hundred twelve." Id. 167(4). Section 112(2)(c) describes "marine insurance of the following kind or kinds," id. 112(2)(c), including "[ijnsurance in connection with ocean going vessels against any of the risks specified in paragraph twenty-one of section forty-six," id. 112(2) (c)(2). In turn, 46(21) specifies: '[mjarine protection and indemnity insurance,' meaning insurance against, or against all legal liability of the insured for, loss, damage or expense arising out of, or incident to, the ownership, operation, chartering, maintenance, use, repair or construction of any vessel, craft or instrumentality in use in ocean or inland waterways, including liability of the insured for personal injury, illness or death or for loss of or damage to the property of another person. Id. '* Meridian Trading Corp. v. National Auto. & Casualty Ins. Co., 45 Misc. 2d 847, 258 N.Y.S.2d 16 (Sup. Ct. N.V. County 1964) is illustrative. In Meridian, the assignee of a first preferred mortgage sought reimbursement from the marine insurer of the vessel owner-mortgagor for funds paid in settlement of a claim against the vessel. Id. at 848, 258 N.Y.S.2d at 17. The morgagee alleged that the insurer's failure to pay the settlement constituted a breach of the insurance contract. Id. at 849, 258 N.Y.S.2d at 17. The court held that although 167 allows certain parties to sue on insurance contracts, marine protection and indemnity insurance is specifically excluded. Id. at 849, 258 N.Y.S-2d at 18. Meridian was followed in Cucurillo v. American S.S. Owners Mut. Protection & Indemn. Assoc, 1969 A.M.C (Sup. Ct. NY. County 1969), a case arising out of the bankruptcy of the AH. Bull Steamship Co. Cucurillo had obtained a prior judgment against Bull and directly sued Bull's insurer for reimbursement. Id. at The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment on the ground that New York law prevented injured third parties from bringing direct actions against marine insurers. Id. at See also Cowan v. Continental Ins. Co., 86 A.D. 2d 646, 446 N.Y.S.2d 412 (2d Dep't 1982) (decedent's administratrix prevented from bringing direct action against marine insurer of tug boat on which decedent was crew member) F. Supp. 569 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff'd, 640 F.2d 993 (9th Cir. 1981) F.2d at 994. " Id.

5 1983] SEAMEN'S RIGHTS 183 ments in Amercargo's New York bankruptcy proceedings, they were still unable to recover. 20 Accordingly, the seamen began a direct action against Amercargo's insurer in a California federal court. 21 After determining that New York law applied to the controversy, 22 the court dismissed the case on the basis of section 167(4), noting that New York's direct action statute "is made expressly inapplicable to marine insurance contracts." 88 Miller v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Co. 24 also demonstrates the obstacle section 167(4) presents to injured seamen. In Miller, as in Ahmed, an injured seaman obtained a default judgment against his employer that went unsatisfied because of the employer's insolvency. 25 The seamen then brought a direct action against the insurer in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. 26 Judge Sofaer, persuaded by the reasoning in Ahmed, dismissed the suit on the ground that "no direct action is allowed on any marine insurance policy." 27 Perhaps contributing to seamen's inability to recover against marine insurers is the distinction, recognized in New York, between indemnity and liability policies. Under a liability policy, the insurer is required to pay as soon as a judgment is obtained against the insured. In contrast, the insurer's obligation under an indemnity policy does not attach until the insured has actually paid the injured party. 28 Most marine insurance policies " Id. " 444 F. Supp. 569 (N.D. Cal. 1978). " Id. at The court first determined that, as the question was one involving marine insurance, state law, not federal maritime law, governed the case. Id. at 571. See notes and accompanying text infra. However, applying federal choice of law rules, see note 143 infra, the court concluded that New York law was applicable under the most significant relationship test. 444 F. Supp. at F. Supp. at 672. On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the plaintiffs contended that the marine insurance exemption violated the equal protection clause. 640 F.2d at 996. Despite the fact that this issue had not been raised at trial, the court remanded the case in order to permit its further development. Id. at 997. In so doing, the court was strongly influenced by the traditional judicial solicitude for the welfare of seamen. See id. at 996; note 120 infra. " 509 F. Supp (S.D.N.Y. 1981). " Id. at Id. 87 Id. at See 7 J. APPLEMAN, INSURANCE LAW AND PRACTICE 4261 (1979); 11 G. COUCH, INSURANCE 44:4 (2d ed. 1982).

6 184 BROOKLYN LAW REVIEW [Vol. 49: 179 covering third party liabilities 29 are contracts of indemnity 30 and, typically, provide that the insurer will pay only that amount "which the assured... shall have become legally liable to pay and shall have paid. " 31 At common law, New York courts recognized the distinction between liability and indemnity policies, holding that an injured party could not sue the insurer on an indemnity policy when a judgment against the insured remained unsatisfied. 82 This distinction continued to be relied upon as a basis for denying relief against marine insurers in cases brought under the direct action statute. 38 This reliance would suggest that removing the statu- " Marine insurance covering third party liability was developed in England by the so-called protection and indemnity (P & I) clubs. Shipowners banded together in these clubs and contributed their proportionate share of any loss suffered by a member. See Libby, Some Aspects of Protection and Indemnity Insurance, 1952 INS. L.J This form of insurance spread rapidly to the United States during the interwar period, and was relied upon heavily by the government during World War II. See id. at See Kierr, The Effect of Direct Action Statutes on P & I Insurance, on Various Other Insurances of Maritime Liabilities, and on Limitations of Shipowners' Liability, 43 TUL. L. REV. 638, 669 (1969). 81 Id. at (emphasis added). 88 Prior to the enactment of the direct action statute, New York common law prohibited an action by an injured third party against an insurer when the insurance contract was one of indemnity. See Coleman v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 247 N.Y. 271, 275,160 N.E. 367, 369 (1928); Burke v. The London Guar. & Accident Co., 47 Misc. 171, 172, 93 N.Y.S. 652, 653 (Sup. Ct. Kings County 1905), aff'd, 126 A.D. 933, 110 N.Y.S (2d Dep't 1908), aff'd, 199 N.Y. 657, 93 N.E (1910). As a result, recovery by an injured third party could be defeated simply by interpreting the insurance contract as one of indemnity. See Jackson v. Citizens Cas. Co., 277 N.Y. 385,389,14 N.E.2d 446, 448 (1938). Section 109 of the Insurance Law, the predecessor of 167, was a remedial statute intended to eliminate this distinction. The effect of the statute was to provide an injured third party with a cause of action against the insurer in the event of the insured's insolvency. See Skenandoa Rayon Corp. v. Halifax Fire Ins. Co., 245 AD. 279, 281, 281 N.Y.S. 193, 196 (4th Dep't 1935), aff'd, 272 N.Y. 457, 3 N.E.2d 867 (1936). 88 For example, in Cucurillo v. American S.S. Owners Mut. Protection & Indemn. Assoc, 1969 A.M.C (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 1969), see note 16 supra, the court, after noting that 167(4) exempted marine insurers from the direct action statute, indicated that the policy at issue was one of indemnity, and that this also barred recovery against the insurer A.M.C. at In so doing, the court relied upon Burke v. The London Guar. & Accident Co., 47 Misc. 171, 93 N.Y.S. 652 (Sup. Ct. Kings County 1905), aff'd, 126 AD. 933,110 N.Y.S (2d Dep't 1908), aff'd, 199 N.Y. 567, 93 N.E (1910), a case decided before New York's direct action statute was enacted. The Cucurillo court completely ignored New York cases expressly holding that the distinction between liability and indemnity policies is irrelevant under the direct action statute. See notes and accompanying text infra. Although superficial and poorly-reasoned, Cucurillo has been relied upon by the federal courts in denying relief to injured third parties against marine insurers. See Ahmed

7 1983] SEAMEN'S RIGHTS 185 tory exception for marine insurers would not correct the problem, since they could escape liability purely as a matter of contract. However, as early as 1928, the New York Court of Appeals held that the direct action statute is generally applicable to indemnity policies. 34 Prior to the enactment of the marine insurer's exemption, this rule was applied to marine indemnity policies. 35 Accordingly, the real obstacle to seamen recovery under the New York direct action statute is section 167(4). 3 * v. American Steamship Mut. Protection & Indemn. Assoc, 640 F.2d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 1981); Liman v. American S.S. Owners Mut. Protection & Indemn. Co., 299 F. Supp. 106, (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd per curiam, 417 F.2d 627 (2d Cir. 1969), cert, denied, 397 U.S. 936 (1970). Nonetheless, the courts in Miller v. American S.S. Owners Mut. Protection & Indem. Assoc, 509 F. Supp. 1047, 1049 (1969), and Ahmed v. American Steamship Mut. Protection & Indem. Assoc, 640 F.2d 993, 995 (1981), acknowledged that New York's direct action statute applied to both liability and indemnity policies. M See Coleman v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 247 N.Y. 271, 275, 160 N.E. 367, 369 (1928) ("The policy was one of indemnity against loss... [and] [tjhe effect of the statute is to give the injured claimant a cause of action against the insurer for the same relief that would be due to a solvent principal seeking indemnity and reimbursement after the judgment had been satisfied."). Accord Brustein v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 265 N.Y. 137, 142, 174 N.E. 304, 305 (1931); Skenandoa Rayon Corp. v. Halifax Fire Ins. Co., 246 AD. 279, 281, 281 N.Y.S. 193, 196 (4th Dep't 1935), aff'd, 272 N.Y. 457, 3 N.E.2d 867 (1936). «See, e.g., Hansen v. Continental Ins. Co., 262 N.Y. 136, 139, 186 N.E. 420, 421 (1933) ("That the traditional contract of marine insurance was one of indemnity for money actually paid or loss actually suffered, is no reason for exempting such policies from the operation of section 109 [predecessor of 167], when the companies issuing marine insurance chose to insure against loss arising from personal injuries."). M A recent New York Court of Appeals decision, 175 East 74th Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 51 N.Y.2d 685, 416 N.E.2d 584, 435 N.Y.S.2d 584 (1980), appears to cast doubt on the applicability of 167 to indemnity policies. In Hartford, the court held that a fidelity bond covering losses sustained through any illegal conduct of the insured's employees was not a "contract or policy insuring against liability," see N.Y. INS. LAW 167(1) (McKinney 1966), so as to permit a direct action against the insurer upon the insured's insolvency. 51 N.Y. at 593,416 N.E.2d at 587, 435 N.Y.S.2d at The court noted that "if the policy is not one of liability, section 167 does not operate in favor of a person who has suffered a loss through some act of the insured ' Id. at 592,416 N.E.2d at 587, 435 N.Y.S.2d at 587 (emphasis added). This suggests that indemnity policies are excluded from the direct action statute. However, it appears that the court meant nothing more than that the policy must cover legal liabilities to third parties or actual losses arising out of those liabilities. In Hartford, the fidelity policy merely covered losses sustained through the conduct of the employee, not losses related to the employee's legal liability to a third party. See id. at 692, 416 N.E.2d at 587,435 N.Y.S.2d at 587.

8 186 BROOKLYN LAW REVIEW [Vol. 49: 179 II. 167(4) HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: THE OBSOLESCENCE OF SECTION Marine insurers were not always exempt from the operation of New York's direct action statute. Prior to 1940, New York courts recognized that the policy of fairness to injured plaintiffs underlying the statute applied with equal force to marine insurance contracts. 87 In that year, however, section 167(4) was amended to exclude marine insurance from the scope of the statute, largely due to efforts by the American Institute of Marine Underwriters (the Institute). 38 The legislative history preceeding the amendment to section 167(4) is sparse. The only available materials are a memorandum from the Institute to New York's Superintendent of Insurance, outlining the Institute's reaons for the proposed amendment, 88 and a letter from the Superintendent to the governor of New York briefly describing the bill. 40 These materials reveal that the concerns supporting the marine insurers' exemption are both narrow and insubstantial. In its memorandum, the Institute offered four major reasons in support of the exemption, none of which remain relevant. The first, and of primary concern to the Institute, was that the direct action statute put them at a competitive disadvantage with outof-state marine insurers. 41 Although New York insurance brokers generally have access only to insurers authorized to do business in New York, 42 an exception exists for marine insurers. 48 Because the direct action statute only applies to policies issued " See note 35 and accompanying text supra. " See 1940 N.Y. LAWS ch. 507, 1 (codified at N.Y. INS LAW 167(4) (McKinney 1966)). A memorandum from Louis Pink, then New York's Superintendent of Insurance, to the Governor, indicates that the amendment "was introduced at the request of the American Institute of Marine Underwriters." Memorandum from Louis Pink, New York Superintendent of Insurance, to the Governor of New York (Apr. 11, 1940) [hereinafter cited as Pink Memo]. 89 Memorandum from Barry, Wainwright, Thatcher & Summers (attorneys for the Institute) to Louis H. Pink, New York Superintendent of Insurance (Apr. 8,1940) [hereinafter cited as Institute Memo]. 40 Pink Memo, supra note See Institute Memo supra note 39, at 1-3. The Institute stated that it was "primarily for this reason" that the proposed exemption from the direct action statute was limited to marine insurers. Id. at 3. «N.Y. INS. LAW 112(1) (McKinney 1966). 48 Id. 112(2)(c).

9 1983] SEAMEN'S RIGHTS 187 or delivered in New York, 44 it is unlikely that unauthorized marine insurers would be subject to it. Thus, the Institute argued, to the extent that such insurers are also not subject to direct action in their home jurisdictions, they would theoretically be able to offer cheaper rates than New York insurers. 45 Although this may have been a legitimate concern in 1940, the situation has changed dramatically. Most of the important maritime jurisdictions have enacted direct action statutes, none of which exempt marine insurers. 48 Indeed, New York marine insurers may now enjoy a competitive advantage, assuming that a relationship exists between direct action and higher insurance premiums. The Institute's second argument in support of the exemption was that the admiralty doctrine of liability in rem would furnish adequate security to claimants. 47 Under this doctrine, the plaintiff brings an action directly against the insured's vessel. 48 Upon receiving a favorable judgment, the plaintiff obtains a lien on the vessel that is "good against the world," including good faith purchasers without notice. 48 Unfortunately, the maritime lien is unavailable to Jones Act plaintiffs. In Plamals v. "Pinar Del Rio/' 60 the Supreme Court interpreted the venue section of the Jones Act as reflecting an intent to limit actions under the Act to in personam proceedings. 51 Plamals thus effec- 4 Id. 167(1). 45 The Institute did not attempt to demonstrate any relationship between higher insurance premiums and direct action statutes. See Institute Memo, supra note 39, at See CAL. INS. CODE (West Supp. 1982); CONN. GEN. STAT. ANN (West 1969); III. ANN. STAT. ch. 73, 1000 (Smith-Hurd 1965); LA. REV. STAT. ANN. 22:655 (West 1978); ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 24-A, (1974); MD. ANN. CODE ART. 48A, 481 (1979); MICH. COMP. LAWS (West 1983); N.J. STAT. ANN. 17:28-2 (West 1970); OHIO REV. CODE ANN (Page 1971), (Page Supp. 1982); PA. STAT. ANN. tit. 40, 117 (Purdon 1971); P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 26, 2001 (1977); R.l. GEN. LAWS (1979). In 1969, Florida became the first state to establish a wholly judicially created right of direct action. See Shingleton v. Bussey, 223 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1969). The Florida courts have interpreted this right to apply to marine insurance policies. See Quinones v. Coral Rock, Inc., 258 So. 2d 485 (Fla. Diet. Ct. App. 1972). 47 See Institute Memo, supra note 39, at See G. GILMORE & C. BLACK, supra note 1, at " See id. at 482, U.S. 151 (1928). 81 The Court noted that the Jones Act permits a seaman's employer to be sued only in the district where he resides or has his principal office. As in rem actions may be

10 188 BROOKLYN LAW REVIEW [Vol. 49: 179 tively subordinates a seaman's Jones Act claim to all other liens. 58 Moreover, even assuming its availability, an in rem admiralty decree has severe disadvantages that lessen its value to a Jones Act plaintiff. Such a decree, following a judicial sale, executes all liens and releases the vessel from all claims, regardless of whether the lienors intervened or even received notice of the proceedings. 88 Because in rem admiralty decrees are internationally recognized, 04 a seaman may find that his lien has been executed in a foreign court in a proceeding of which he was unaware. Furthermore, the priority system among maritime liens may still prevent recovery. Claims arising out of maritime torts rank third in the priority hierarchy, behind claims for salvage and seamen's wages. 05 In addition, among claims of the same type, the inverse order rule gives priority to the most recent lien - the last in time is the first in right. 56 The Institute also asserted that direct action would conflict with the traditional maritime practice under which claims are asserted only after the insured has defended an action and paid any judgment rendered. 57 That this practice amounts to a "tradition" among marine insurers hardly constitutes a substantial policy justification for maintaining it. Indeed, the Institute, in effect, merely restated the fact that marine insurance policies are typically indemnity contracts. 58 However, this rationale alone could not have been a valid reason for exempting marine insurers, as the direct action statute had been applied to indemnity policies both before and after section 167(4) was amended. 59 brought wherever the ship is located, the Court read the venue provision to negate any implication that seamen may bring in rem proceedings. See id. at 155. " See G. GILMORE & C. BLACK, supra note 1, at 287. " See Toy, Introduction to the Law of Maritime Liens, 47 TUL. L. REV. 559 (1973). 84 See G. GILMORE & C. BLACK, supra note 1, at 482. " See id. at M See id. at See Institute Memo, supra note 39, at 5 ("It is also the practice in admiralty matters for the assured to defend the litigation and to pay any final judgment that is rendered."). H See note 30 and accompanying text supra. 89 See notes and accompanying text supra. The real purpose underlying the amendment was to remedy the perceived competitive disadvantage of New York marine insurers. In recommending its passage, the New York Superintendent of Insurance clearly regarded this to be the amendment's purpose, see Pink Memo, supra note 38, as did the Institute, see Institute Memo, supra note 39, at 3. Accord Miller v. American

11 19831 S^4^^S^^^S 189 ^hile tradition provides little reason to maintain arule under any circumstances,there is even less ofarationale when the policies underlying the rule have been abandoned, ^he marine insurers^ exemption conflicts with major philosophical changes regarding the relationship between insurers and injured third parties. Injured third partiesmaysue insurers directly ina substantial number of jurisdictions unhindered by regressive privityofcontractrules.^^hilevarious legal theories have been used to legitimise this practice,^they all e^pressabasic concern ^.S. Owners Mut. Protection^Indem. Co., 509^.^upp. 1047,1049n.2(^.l^.N.Y.1981). TheNinthCircuitinAhmedv.American^.^.Mut.Protection^Indem.Co., 640 ^.2d993(9thCir. 1981),suggestedthat the marineinsurers'exemption was enacted because of uncertainty whether direct action statutes were applicable in maritime law, ^d. at 996 n.5.this ^uncertainty" no longer exists, see notes and accompanying text ^^, and thus cannot be consideredajustification for the statute. ^^uiteapartfrom the jurisdictions that havespecificallyenacteddirect action statutes, see note 46 s^p^a, an even greater number of states have recognizedapohcy of granting to the injured plaintiff an interest in the wrongdoers insurance coverage under certain circumstances. See Continental Auto Ins. v.menuskin, 222 Ala. 370, , 132 ^o. 883, 884 (1931)^ Maryland Cas. Co. v. Waggoner, 193 Ark. 550, 555, 101^.W.2d 451, (1937)^ Morehouse v. ^n^ployer'sl^iab. Assurance Corp., 119 Conn. 416, 425, 177 A^568,573(1935)^Gothbergv.Nemerovski,58lll.App.2d372,383-85,208N.^2dl2, (1965)^unn v. clones, 143 I^an. 218, 223, 53P.2d 918, 921 (1936)^.S.^idelity^ Guar. Co. v. Williams, 148 Md. 289, , 129 A. 660, (1925)^ Mathewson v. Colpitts, 284 Mass. 581^ 585,188 N.^. 601, 602 (1933)^ Powers v. Wilson, 139 Minn. 309, 311,166 N.W.401, 402 (1918)^ Commercial Cas. Ins. Co^v.^kinner, 190 Miss. 533, 542,1 ^o. 2d 225, 226 (1941)^ Maryland Cas. Co. v. Martin, 88 N.^I. 346, 348, 189 A. 162, 164 (1937)^ Beacon l^amp Co. v. Traveller's Ins. Co., 61 N.^.^. 59, 68, 47 A. 579, (1900)^untzv.Stern, 135 Ohio 225, 230, 20 N.^. 2d 241, (1939)^ Aetna Cas.^ ^ur. Co. v. Gentry, 191 Okl. 659, , 132P.2d 326, 331 (1942)^ Boocks v. Cochran, 347 Pa. 36, 39, 31 A.2d 541, 542 (1943)^outhland Greyhound I^ines Inc. v.i^ennison, 62 ^.W.2d 500, 501 (Tex. App. 1933)^ State Perm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v.^iustis, 168 Va. 158, , 190 ^.^.163, 167 (1937)^ Nicktovich v. Olympic Motor Transit Co., 150 Wash. 278, , 272P.736, 738 (1928)^ Bro v. Standard^Accident Ins. Co., 194 Wis. 293, 296, 215 N.W.431, 432 (1927). ^Perhaps the most common approach is to characterize the injured third party asa third party beneficiary,seebes^a^eme^^(^eco^o^co^rac^^l33(l)^commentb (1973),under the insurance eontract.this position is illustrated by Gothberg v. Nemerovski, App. 2d 372, 208 N.^.2d 12 (1965), where thecourt held that the judgment creditors of an applicant for an automobile liability policy were entitled to sue the applicant's broker for failure to procure the policy, ^d. at , 208 N.^.2d at The broker argued that the creditors lacked standing to sue because of the absence of privity ofcontract.thecourtwasunpersuaded. Because of the importance of liability insurance to injured parties, the court was unwilling to regard such persons as mere ^incidental" beneficiaries of the insurance contract. See ^d. at 385, 208 N.^. 2d at 20. Accordingly, the court permittedadirect action against the broker. California has also taken the position that an injured claimant isathird party beneficiary of the wrongdoer's insurance policy inboththemotor vehicle, see Johnson v.

Automobile Liability Policy Held to Cover Stolen Car

Automobile Liability Policy Held to Cover Stolen Car The Ohio State University Knowledge Bank kb.osu.edu Ohio State Law Journal (Moritz College of Law) Ohio State Law Journal: Volume 22, Issue 3 (1961) 1961 Automobile Liability Policy Held to Cover Stolen

More information

CUNDIFF V. STATE FARM: ALLOWING DOUBLE RECOVERY UNDER UIM COVERAGE

CUNDIFF V. STATE FARM: ALLOWING DOUBLE RECOVERY UNDER UIM COVERAGE CUNDIFF V. STATE FARM: ALLOWING DOUBLE RECOVERY UNDER UIM COVERAGE AND WORKERS COMPENSATION Melissa Healy INTRODUCTION In Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the Arizona Supreme Court

More information

29 of 41 DOCUMENTS. SAN DIEGO ASSEMBLERS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WORK COMP FOR LESS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Respondent.

29 of 41 DOCUMENTS. SAN DIEGO ASSEMBLERS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WORK COMP FOR LESS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Respondent. Page 1 29 of 41 DOCUMENTS SAN DIEGO ASSEMBLERS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WORK COMP FOR LESS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Respondent. D062406 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE

More information

February 20, 1978. You inquire concerning section 4 of 1977 House Bill 2490, an amendment. Dear Commissioner Bell:

February 20, 1978. You inquire concerning section 4 of 1977 House Bill 2490, an amendment. Dear Commissioner Bell: February 20, 1978 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 78-81 Mr. Fletcher Bell Commissioner of Insurance Kansas Insurance Department 1st Floor - State Office Building Topeka, Kansas 66612 Re: Motor Vehicles--Insurance--Rights

More information

Case: 2:04-cv-01110-JLG-NMK Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/13/05 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #:

Case: 2:04-cv-01110-JLG-NMK Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/13/05 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageid> Case: 2:04-cv-01110-JLG-NMK Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/13/05 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ALVIN E. WISEMAN, Plaintiff,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Case: 13-60119 Document: 00512554303 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT GARY CHENEVERT, v. Plaintiff Appellee United States Court of Appeals Fifth

More information

Arbitration in Seamen Cases

Arbitration in Seamen Cases Arbitration in Seamen Cases Recently, seamen have been facing mandatory arbitration provisions in their employment agreements which deny them their rights to a jury trial under the Jones Act, and also

More information

F I L E D August 9, 2011

F I L E D August 9, 2011 Case: 10-30886 Document: 00511566112 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D August 9, 2011 Lyle

More information

SYLLABUS FOR MARITIME PERSONAL INJURY AND DEATH

SYLLABUS FOR MARITIME PERSONAL INJURY AND DEATH SYLLABUS FOR MARITIME PERSONAL INJURY AND DEATH Spring 2016 PROFFESSOR JOHN F. UNGER 1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES The objectives of this course are to teach the substantive law of the subject matter integrated

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ROBERT M. EDWARDS, JR. Jones Obenchain, LLP South Bend, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: KATHRYN A. MOLL Nation Schoening Moll Fortville, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

More information

Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice NORTHBROOK PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice NORTHBROOK PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY OPINION BY JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, v. Record No. 951919 September

More information

2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227

More information

No. 99-C-2573 LEE CARRIER AND HIS WIFE MARY BETH CARRIER. Versus RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

No. 99-C-2573 LEE CARRIER AND HIS WIFE MARY BETH CARRIER. Versus RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY Ed. Note: Opinion Rendered April 11, 2000 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 99-C-2573 LEE CARRIER AND HIS WIFE MARY BETH CARRIER Versus RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL,

More information

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-1110. Faron L. Clark, Respondent, vs. Sheri Connor, et al., Defendants, Vydell Jones, Appellant.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-1110. Faron L. Clark, Respondent, vs. Sheri Connor, et al., Defendants, Vydell Jones, Appellant. STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-1110 Faron L. Clark, Respondent, vs. Sheri Connor, et al., Defendants, Vydell Jones, Appellant. Filed January 21, 2014 Affirmed Hooten, Judge Cass County District

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I. INTRODUCION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I. INTRODUCION Case :-cv-00-rsm Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE CGI TECHNOLOGIES AND SOLUTIONS, INC., in its capacity as sponsor and fiduciary for CGI

More information

-vs- No. 89-261 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent,

-vs- No. 89-261 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, No. 89-261 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1990 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, -vs- Plaintiff and Respondent, THE ESTATE OF GARY NELSON BRAUN, Deceased, and CHESTER V. BRAUN,

More information

2016 IL App (1st) 133918-U. No. 1-13-3918 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT

2016 IL App (1st) 133918-U. No. 1-13-3918 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT 2016 IL App (1st) 133918-U No. 1-13-3918 SIXTH DIVISION May 6, 2016 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS NORMA KAKISH and RAJAIE KAKISH, Plaintiffs-Appellees, UNPUBLISHED December 29, 2005 v No. 260963 Ingham Circuit Court DOMINION OF CANADA GENERAL LC No. 04-000809-NI INSURANCE

More information

workers' compensation benefits under the Washington Industrial Insurance Act (WIIA). Long

workers' compensation benefits under the Washington Industrial Insurance Act (WIIA). Long LED COWIJ QP APPEALS 2013 MAR 19 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHIN AN 8: 39 DIVISION II B ROBERT LONG, deceased, and AILEEN LONG, Petitioner /Beneficiary, No. 43187-4 II - Appellant, V. WASHINGTON

More information

Arthur J. Siegel, for third-party appellant. Glenn A. Kaminska, for third-party respondents. In this case arising from an automobile accident, the

Arthur J. Siegel, for third-party appellant. Glenn A. Kaminska, for third-party respondents. In this case arising from an automobile accident, the ================================================================= This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. -----------------------------------------------------------------

More information

In The NO. 14-98-00234-CV. UNITED STATES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Appellant

In The NO. 14-98-00234-CV. UNITED STATES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Appellant Affirmed and Opinion filed January 13, 2000. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-98-00234-CV UNITED STATES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Appellant V. UNDERWRITERS AT INTEREST and STEVEN RICHARD BISHOP,

More information

MEMORANDUM. Tim Cameron, Kim Chamberlain, Chris Killian Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association

MEMORANDUM. Tim Cameron, Kim Chamberlain, Chris Killian Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: Tim Cameron, Kim Chamberlain, Chris Killian Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association David R. Carpenter, Collin P. Wedel, Lauren A. McCray Liability of Municipal Members

More information

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS REL: 12/09/2005 STATE FARM v. BROWN Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JAMES HENDRICK, v Plaintiff-Appellant, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNPUBLISHED May 24, 2007 No. 275318 Montcalm Circuit Court LC No. 06-007975-NI

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 03-11688. D. C. Docket No. 99-01319-CV-S-N

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 03-11688. D. C. Docket No. 99-01319-CV-S-N [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 03-11688 D. C. Docket No. 99-01319-CV-S-N FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT February 5, 2004 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK

More information

Alani Golanski, for appellants. Christian H. Gannon, for respondent. A statute requires anyone who brings a lawsuit against

Alani Golanski, for appellants. Christian H. Gannon, for respondent. A statute requires anyone who brings a lawsuit against ================================================================= This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. -----------------------------------------------------------------

More information

JUSTICE HOFFMAN delivered the opinion of the court: The plaintiff, Melissa Callahan, appeals from an order of the

JUSTICE HOFFMAN delivered the opinion of the court: The plaintiff, Melissa Callahan, appeals from an order of the SECOND DIVISION FILED: July 3, 2007 No. 1-06-3178 MELISSA CALLAHAN, ) APPEAL FROM THE ) CIRCUIT COURT OF Plaintiff-Appellant, ) COOK COUNTY ) v. ) ) No. 05 L 006795 EDGEWATER CARE & REHABILITATION CENTER,

More information

ST. MARY S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER BATH IRON WORKS. treatment costs pursuant to the Maine Workers Compensation Act, 39-A M.R.S.

ST. MARY S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER BATH IRON WORKS. treatment costs pursuant to the Maine Workers Compensation Act, 39-A M.R.S. MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2009 ME 92 Docket: WCB-08-663 Argued: May 20, 2009 Decided: August 18, 2009 Reporter of Decisions Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD,

More information

Liability of Volunteer Directors of Nonprofit Corporations (10/02)

Liability of Volunteer Directors of Nonprofit Corporations (10/02) Liability of Volunteer Directors of Nonprofit Corporations (10/02) This memorandum addresses the California and federal law protections that exist to shield volunteer directors of nonprofit corporations

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC02-2659 CYNTHIA CLEFF NORMAN, Petitioner, vs. TERRI LAMARRIA FARROW, Respondent. [June 24, 2004] WELLS, J. We have for review Norman v. Farrow, 832 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA

More information

ENFIELD PIZZA PALACE, INC., ET AL. v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF GREATER NEW YORK (AC 19268)

ENFIELD PIZZA PALACE, INC., ET AL. v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF GREATER NEW YORK (AC 19268) SCHALLER, J. The plaintiffs 2 appeal from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Insurance Company of Greater New York, in this declaratory judgment action concerning a dispute about the defendant

More information

HARRIS v AUTO CLUB INSURANCE ASSOCIATION. Docket No. 144579. Argued March 6, 2013 (Calendar No. 7). Decided July 29, 2013.

HARRIS v AUTO CLUB INSURANCE ASSOCIATION. Docket No. 144579. Argued March 6, 2013 (Calendar No. 7). Decided July 29, 2013. Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan Syllabus This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Chief

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS NO. 13-1006 IN RE ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, RELATOR ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS PER CURIAM Rafael Zuniga sued San Diego Tortilla (SDT) for personal injuries and then added

More information

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Filed 10/4/13; pub. order 10/28/13 (see end of opn.) COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO ASSEMBLERS, INC., D062406 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WORK COMP

More information

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA o SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 95-C-1851 DONALD HEBERT Versus JOE JEFFREY, JR., VENTURE TRANSPORT COMPANY, RANGER INSURANCE COMPANY, THOMAS H. GORDON, DWIGHT J. GRANIER AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

More information

Upon consideration of the motions for rehearing, the original opinion heretofore filed is withdrawn and the following substituted therefor.

Upon consideration of the motions for rehearing, the original opinion heretofore filed is withdrawn and the following substituted therefor. EMPLOYMENT SEC. COMM'N V. C.R. DAVIS CONTRACTING CO., 1969-NMSC-174, 81 N.M. 23, 462 P.2d 608 (S. Ct. 1969) EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, and STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION OF THE

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Safe Auto Insurance Company, : Appellant : : v. : No. 2247 C.D. 2004 : Argued: February 28, 2005 School District of Philadelphia, : Pride Coleman and Helena Coleman

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. The memorandum disposition filed on May 19, 2016, is hereby amended.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. The memorandum disposition filed on May 19, 2016, is hereby amended. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED JUN 30 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation, v. Plaintiff - Appellant,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. Israel : : v. : No. 3:98cv302(JBA) : State Farm Mutual Automobile : Insurance Company et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. Israel : : v. : No. 3:98cv302(JBA) : State Farm Mutual Automobile : Insurance Company et al. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Israel : : v. : No. 3:98cv302(JBA) : State Farm Mutual Automobile : Insurance Company et al. : Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #82] After

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 08-1412. In re: GEORGE W. COLE, Debtor. CITY OF WILKES-BARRE, Appellant v.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 08-1412. In re: GEORGE W. COLE, Debtor. CITY OF WILKES-BARRE, Appellant v. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NOT PRECEDENTIAL No. 08-1412 In re: GEORGE W. COLE, Debtor CITY OF WILKES-BARRE, Appellant v. ROBERT P. SHEILS, Jr., Trustee On Appeal from the United

More information

No. 04-3753 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 427 F.3d 1048; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 22999

No. 04-3753 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 427 F.3d 1048; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 22999 RONALD WARRUM, in his capacity as Personal Representative of the Estate of JOSEPH F. SAYYAH, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. No. 04-3753 UNITED STATES COURT

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION Case: 4:12-cv-02030-DDN Doc. #: 42 Filed: 06/19/13 Page: 1 of 8 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION MARY HAYDEN, ) individually and as plaintiff

More information

By Heather Howell Wright, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP. (Published July 24, 2013 in Insurance Coverage, by the ABA Section Of Litigation)

By Heather Howell Wright, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP. (Published July 24, 2013 in Insurance Coverage, by the ABA Section Of Litigation) Tiara Condominium: The Demise of the Economic Loss Rule in Construction Defect Litigation and Impact on the Property Damage Requirement in a General Liability Policy By Heather Howell Wright, Bradley Arant

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Clyde Kennedy, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 1649 C.D. 2012 : Submitted: May 17, 2013 Workers Compensation Appeal : Board (Henry Modell & Co., Inc.), : Respondent

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 8/8/14 Opn filed after rehearing CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE MICHAEL M. MOJTAHEDI, Plaintiff and

More information

FORC QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF INSURANCE LAW AND REGULATION

FORC QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF INSURANCE LAW AND REGULATION The plaintiff in Schmidt filed suit against her employer, Personalized Audio Visual, Inc. ("PAV") and PAV s president, Dennis Smith ("Smith"). 684 A.2d at 68. Her Complaint alleged several causes of action

More information

ARE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS COVERED: A REVIEW OF MOTOR CARRIERS FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

ARE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS COVERED: A REVIEW OF MOTOR CARRIERS FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ARE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS COVERED: A REVIEW OF MOTOR CARRIERS FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Seth G. Gausnell Rabbitt, Pitzer & Snodgrass, P.C. 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 400 St. Louis, Missouri 63102

More information

John M. Denby, for appellant. Anthony M. Napoli, for respondent. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with

John M. Denby, for appellant. Anthony M. Napoli, for respondent. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with ================================================================= This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. -----------------------------------------------------------------

More information

INTRODUCTORY COMMENT

INTRODUCTORY COMMENT INTRODUCTORY COMMENT These instructions were prepared for use in an action brought under maritime common law and the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. 688, by a "seaman" against his or her employer. The instructions

More information

Reed Armstrong Quarterly

Reed Armstrong Quarterly Reed Armstrong Quarterly January 2009 http://www.reedarmstrong.com/default.asp Contributors: William B. Starnes II Tori L. Cox IN THIS ISSUE: Joint and Several Liability The Fault of Settled Tortfeasors

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED August 20, 2015 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Appellee, v No. 320710 Oakland Circuit Court YVONNE J. HARE,

More information

2005-C -2496 CHARLES ALBERT AND DENISE ALBERT v. FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. (Parish of Lafayette)

2005-C -2496 CHARLES ALBERT AND DENISE ALBERT v. FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. (Parish of Lafayette) FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 0 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 17th day of October, 200, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2005-C -249 CHARLES ALBERT AND

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 94-11035. (Summary Calendar) GLEN R. GURLEY and JEAN E. GURLEY, AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY,

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 94-11035. (Summary Calendar) GLEN R. GURLEY and JEAN E. GURLEY, AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 94-11035 (Summary Calendar) GLEN R. GURLEY and JEAN E. GURLEY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal

More information

RECENT CASES INSURANCE LAW-UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE VALIDITY OF OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS

RECENT CASES INSURANCE LAW-UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE VALIDITY OF OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS INSURANCE LAW-UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE VALIDITY OF OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS Curran v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co., 25 Ohio St. 2d 33, 266 N.E. 2d 566 (1971). T HIS CASE CAME to the Ohio

More information

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Fifth Circuit Attempts to Clarify the Interplay Between OCSLA and Maritime Law; Declines to Create a Zone of Danger Cause of Action Under General Maritime Law In Francis Barker v. Hercules Offshore,

More information

Prepared by: Hon. Duncan W. Keir, Judge U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland. and. Richard L. Wasserman, Esq.

Prepared by: Hon. Duncan W. Keir, Judge U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland. and. Richard L. Wasserman, Esq. Memorandum Summarizing Procedures With Respect To Removal Of Bankruptcy-Related State Court Actions To The United States District Court And United States Bankruptcy Court In Maryland Prepared by: Hon.

More information

Case 6:12-cv-00914-RBD-TBS Document 136 Filed 07/16/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID 4525

Case 6:12-cv-00914-RBD-TBS Document 136 Filed 07/16/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID 4525 Case 6:12-cv-00914-RBD-TBS Document 136 Filed 07/16/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID 4525 TROVILLION CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, INC.; and CASA JARDIN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE

More information

Case 2:08-cv-01740-MLCF-DEK Document 37 Filed 05/21/08 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case 2:08-cv-01740-MLCF-DEK Document 37 Filed 05/21/08 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Case 2:08-cv-01740-MLCF-DEK Document 37 Filed 05/21/08 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ARTHUR MONTEGUT, SR. CIVIL ACTION v. NO. 08-1740 BUNGE NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM. Bartle, J. December, 2012

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM. Bartle, J. December, 2012 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : WELLS FARGO INSURANCE SERVICES : OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., et al. : NO. 10-5433

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 06-3601 J.E. Jones Construction Co.; The Jones Company Custom Homes, Inc., Now known as REJ Custom Homes, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. Appeal from

More information

Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION JAMES E. TOMLINSON and DARLENE TOMLINSON, his wife, v. Plaintiffs,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA STANLEY SMITH, et al. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INS. CO. : NO. 07-0834 L. Felipe Restrepo United States Magistrate

More information

Illinois Official Reports

Illinois Official Reports Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Certain Underwriters at Lloyd s London v. The Burlington Insurance Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 141408 Appellate Court Caption CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD S LONDON,

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO. 10-4345. DOROTHY AVICOLLI, Appellant

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO. 10-4345. DOROTHY AVICOLLI, Appellant NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO. 10-4345 DOROTHY AVICOLLI, Appellant v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, a/k/a GEICO; ANGELO CARTER; CHARLES CARTER On Appeal

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 19 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation, v. Plaintiff

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MEMORANDUM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MEMORANDUM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IMPERIUM INSURANCE COMPANY f/k/a DELOS INSURANCE COMPANY v. Civil No. CCB-12-1373 ALLIED INSURANCE BROKERS, INC. MEMORANDUM This suit arises

More information

Case 5:06-cv-00503-XR Document 20 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Case 5:06-cv-00503-XR Document 20 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION Case 5:06-cv-00503-XR Document 20 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, VS. Plaintiff, HENRY D. GOLTZ, EVANGELINA

More information

Case 3:13-cv-01238-JPG-PMF Document 18 Filed 10/21/14 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case 3:13-cv-01238-JPG-PMF Document 18 Filed 10/21/14 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Case 3:13-cv-01238-JPG-PMF Document 18 Filed 10/21/14 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #78 RICHARD M. O DONNELL, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS v. Case No. 13-cv-1238-JPG-PMF

More information

2014 IL App (1st) 123454-U No. 1-12-3454 February 11, 2014 Modified Upon Rehearing April 30, 2014 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT

2014 IL App (1st) 123454-U No. 1-12-3454 February 11, 2014 Modified Upon Rehearing April 30, 2014 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT 2014 IL App (1st) 123454-U No. 1-12-3454 February 11, 2014 Modified Upon Rehearing April 30, 2014 THIRD DIVISION NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent

More information

United States Workers Compensation/Indemnification Overview

United States Workers Compensation/Indemnification Overview United States Workers Compensation/Indemnification Overview January 18, 2012 Jill Kirila jill.kirila@squiresanders.com Kevin Hess kevin.hess@squiresanders.com 36 Offices in 17 Countries Workers Compensation

More information

to add a number of affirmative defenses, including an allegation that Henry s claim was barred

to add a number of affirmative defenses, including an allegation that Henry s claim was barred REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed May 11, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-00616-CV DOROTHY HENRY, Appellant V. BASSAM ZAHRA, Appellee On Appeal from the

More information

INSURANCE POLICIES. by Bankruptcy Code Section 541. That section provides, in pertinent part:

INSURANCE POLICIES. by Bankruptcy Code Section 541. That section provides, in pertinent part: BANKING LAW JOURNAL by Bankruptcy Code Section 541. That section provides, in pertinent part: The commencement of a case under section 301, 302, or 303 of this title creates an estate. Such estate is comprised

More information

2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013

2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U Order

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION Case 508-cv-00257-HL Document 89 Filed 07/22/09 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION JOYCE and EARL CRISWELL, Plaintiffs, v. Civil No. 508-CV-257(HL)

More information

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 15. The Opinions handed down on the 25th day of February, 2003, are as follows:

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 15. The Opinions handed down on the 25th day of February, 2003, are as follows: FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 15 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 25th day of February, 2003, are as follows: BY KIMBALL, J.: 2002-C - 1634 RONALD J.

More information

Case 2:06-cv-02026-CM Document 114 Filed 03/10/09 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Case 2:06-cv-02026-CM Document 114 Filed 03/10/09 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Case 2:06-cv-02026-CM Document 114 Filed 03/10/09 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ) METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) CIVIL ACTION v.

More information

Case 3:07-cv-06160-MLC-JJH Document 80 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 1 of 15

Case 3:07-cv-06160-MLC-JJH Document 80 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 1 of 15 Case 3:07-cv-06160-MLC-JJH Document 80 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 1 of 15 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : LAUREN KAUFMAN, et al., : CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-6160 (MLC) :

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO.: 2014-CV-000079-A-O Lower Case No.: 2012-SC-002127-O Appellant, v.

More information

FLOYD-TUNNELL V. SHELTER MUT. INS. CO.: WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIMS AND UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE

FLOYD-TUNNELL V. SHELTER MUT. INS. CO.: WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIMS AND UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE FLOYD-TUNNELL V. SHELTER MUT. INS. CO.: WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIMS AND UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE INTRODUCTION Rebecca Floyd-Tunnell and Doris Floyd ( Appellants ) filed suit against Shelter Mutual Insurance

More information

S13G1048. CARTER v. PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN INSURANCE. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Carter

S13G1048. CARTER v. PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN INSURANCE. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Carter 295 Ga. 487 FINAL COPY S13G1048. CARTER v. PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN INSURANCE. HINES, Presiding Justice. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Carter v. Progressive Mountain Ins.,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: LOUIS T. PERRY HARMONY A. MAPPES Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: ALICE BARTANEN BLEVINS Salem, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA GREEN TREE

More information

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO FRANCIS GRAHAM, ) No. ED97421 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Louis County vs. ) ) Honorable Steven H. Goldman STATE

More information

Case 3:13-cv-00054 Document 120 Filed in TXSD on 05/04/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION ORDER

Case 3:13-cv-00054 Document 120 Filed in TXSD on 05/04/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION ORDER Case 3:13-cv-00054 Document 120 Filed in TXSD on 05/04/15 Page 1 of 7 This case is being reviewed for possible publication by American Maritime Cases, Inc. ( AMC ). If this case is published in AMC s book

More information

History: Add. 1971, Act 19, Imd. Eff. May 5, 1971; Am. 1976, Act 89, Imd. Eff. Apr. 17, 1976.

History: Add. 1971, Act 19, Imd. Eff. May 5, 1971; Am. 1976, Act 89, Imd. Eff. Apr. 17, 1976. MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS ACT Act 198 of 1965 AN ACT providing for the establishment, maintenance and administration of a motor vehicle accident claims fund for the payment of damages for injury to

More information

FOLLOW THE SETTLEMENTS: BAD CLAIMS HANDLING EXCEPTION. Robert M. Hall

FOLLOW THE SETTLEMENTS: BAD CLAIMS HANDLING EXCEPTION. Robert M. Hall FOLLOW THE SETTLEMENTS: BAD CLAIMS HANDLING EXCEPTION By Robert M. Hall [Mr. Hall is a former law firm partner, a former insurance and reinsurance company executive and acts as an insurance consultant

More information

Case 2:10-cv-02263-JAR Document 98 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Case 2:10-cv-02263-JAR Document 98 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Case 2:10-cv-02263-JAR Document 98 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS SANDRA H. DEYA and EDWIN DEYA, individually and as next friends and natural

More information

THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ACT S IMMUNITY PROVISION FOUND IN SECTION 44112: A CASE STUDY OF VREELAND V. FERRER

THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ACT S IMMUNITY PROVISION FOUND IN SECTION 44112: A CASE STUDY OF VREELAND V. FERRER THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ACT S IMMUNITY PROVISION FOUND IN SECTION 44112: A CASE STUDY OF VREELAND V. FERRER Lea Pilar Valdivia 1 Podhurst & Orseck, P.A. Miami, Florida On July 18, 2011,

More information

57 of 62 DOCUMENTS. No. 5-984 / 05-0037 COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. 2006 Iowa App. LEXIS 172. March 1, 2006, Filed

57 of 62 DOCUMENTS. No. 5-984 / 05-0037 COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. 2006 Iowa App. LEXIS 172. March 1, 2006, Filed Page 1 57 of 62 DOCUMENTS JAMES C. GARDNER, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. HEARTLAND EXPRESS, INC., and NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees. No. 5-984 / 05-0037 COURT OF APPEALS

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION

COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION 2002 WI App 237 Case No.: 02-0261 Complete Title of Case: KENNETH A. FOLKMAN, SR., DEBRA J. FOLKMAN AND KENNETH A. FOLKMAN, JR., Petition for Review filed.

More information

September 14, 2012. Re: Injury compensation for aquaculture employees (NSGLC-12-04-06)

September 14, 2012. Re: Injury compensation for aquaculture employees (NSGLC-12-04-06) September 14, 2012 Thomas J. Murray, Associate Director VIMS Marine Advisory Services Program Leader, Virginia Sea Grant Extension Program Virginia Institute of Marine Science College of William & Mary

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND. v. C.A. No. 03-189T MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND. v. C.A. No. 03-189T MEMORANDUM AND ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE CO., Petitioner v. C.A. No. 03-189T DEAN PESANTE, Respondent MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ERNEST C. TORRES, Chief United

More information

Illinois Official Reports

Illinois Official Reports Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Acuity v. Decker, 2015 IL App (2d) 150192 Appellate Court Caption ACUITY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DONALD DECKER, Defendant- Appellee (Groot Industries, Inc., Defendant).

More information

Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the ****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal

More information

Case 1:14-cv-05671-VEC Document 14 Filed 05/26/15 Page 1 of 8. Plaintiff,

Case 1:14-cv-05671-VEC Document 14 Filed 05/26/15 Page 1 of 8. Plaintiff, Case 114-cv-05671-VEC Document 14 Filed 05/26/15 Page 1 of 8 This case is being reviewed for possible publication by American Maritime Cases, Inc. ( AMC ). If this case is published in AMC s book product

More information

Determining Jurisdiction for Patent Law Malpractice Cases

Determining Jurisdiction for Patent Law Malpractice Cases Determining Jurisdiction for Patent Law Malpractice Cases This article originally appeared in The Legal Intelligencer on May 1, 2013 As an intellectual property attorney, the federal jurisdiction of patent-related

More information

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-13-00815-CV IN THE ESTATE OF Alvilda Mae AGUILAR From the Probate Court No. 2, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012-PC-2802 Honorable

More information

Case 8:13-cv-00295-EAK-TGW Document 145 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 5551 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Case 8:13-cv-00295-EAK-TGW Document 145 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 5551 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Case 8:13-cv-00295-EAK-TGW Document 145 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 5551 SUMMIT CONTRACTORS, INC., Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION v. CASE NO. 8:13-CV-295-T-17TGW

More information

WORKERS COMPENSATION OPTIONS FOR TRIBES IN WASHINGTON STATE

WORKERS COMPENSATION OPTIONS FOR TRIBES IN WASHINGTON STATE WORKERS COMPENSATION OPTIONS FOR TRIBES IN WASHINGTON STATE Peter S. Hicks WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC 2005. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Peter S. Hicks I. INTRODUCTION. This paper provides an overview of the

More information

State v. Stonington Insurance Co., No. 811-12-02 Wncv (Toor, J., June, 29, 2006)

State v. Stonington Insurance Co., No. 811-12-02 Wncv (Toor, J., June, 29, 2006) State v. Stonington Insurance Co., No. 811-12-02 Wncv (Toor, J., June, 29, 2006) [The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of

More information