This case concerns a dispute over whether a business auto insurance policy issued by State Auto to Eastern Data Systems, Inc. (EDSI) provides coverage for an accident involving a van that EDSI had owned prior to its merger into EPS Network Solutions. After the 2003 merger, Network Solutions employee Burt Kennedy caused a multi-vehicle crash while driving the van on company business; Federal Insurance Company settled the resulting claims and sought contribution from State Auto, which denied coverage based on a non-assignment clause in its policy. The Fourth Circuit did not resolve the coverage issue on the merits. Instead, it certified two questions to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia: whether West Virginia Code § 31D-11-1107(a)(3) voids the non-assignment clause on its face when two corporations merge, and, if not, whether the statute still applies if the insurable risks did not increase after the merger. The court explained that no controlling West Virginia precedent or statute answers these questions and that their resolution would determine the outcome of the appeal.
This case involves a plaintiff who successfully challenged an adverse decision by the Secretary of Health and Human Services regarding Social Security benefits in federal court under the Social Security Act. After obtaining a reversal, the plaintiff applied for attorney's fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), which the Secretary did not contest on eligibility grounds. The court awarded $3,330 in fees for 33 hours and 18 minutes of work at a rate of $100 per hour plus $150.25 in costs, reasoning that the EAJA's $75 statutory cap could be adjusted for cost-of-living increases and limited to the prevailing market rate.
In Portee v. Tollison, two state prisoners housed in South Carolina's Central Correctional Institution brought a § 1983 action claiming that prison policies violated their Eighth Amendment rights by integrating inmates with AIDS into the general population, allowing shared utensils and food service, and failing to test all prisoners for HIV. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that prison officials' policies were reasonable under prevailing medical consensus that AIDS is not transmitted by casual contact, that there was no evidence of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, and that claims for damages were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity along with qualified immunity. Judicial restraint was appropriate given the deference owed to prison administrators on matters of institutional safety and health policy.
The case involved a service station operator, Loren Miller, who sued his fuel supplier, W.H. Bristow, Inc., after Bristow terminated their sublease and supply agreement with 30 days' notice following the property owner's cancellation of the underlying lease. Miller claimed violations of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) requiring 90 days' notice for franchise terminations, along with negligence, breach of contract, and antitrust claims. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that the PMPA did not apply because the consignment arrangement did not qualify Miller as a retailer or distributor under the statute's definitions, as Bristow retained title, set prices, and bore most risks. The court also found no triable issues on the other causes of action.
The case was a declaratory judgment action in which plaintiff Laverne Powers sought a ruling that the United States, through the Farmers Home Administration, held no security interest in his 1989 crops. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted judgment to the defendant. It held that a security interest had attached under South Carolina’s UCC because the 1985 security agreement satisfied the agreement requirement, value was given through preexisting loan debts and their reamortization, and the debtor obtained rights in the crops upon planting. The court further found that the seven-year limitation on after-acquired crop interests did not bar attachment, as the operative agreement was executed in 1985.
The case involved the U.S. government's effort to recover educational costs from former Air Force Academy cadet James F. McCrackin after he resigned in 1985 amid allegations of misconduct, including marijuana use and honor code violations. McCrackin had signed agreements obligating him to either complete an active duty service commitment or reimburse the costs of his education. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, ordering reimbursement of approximately $41,000. It reasoned that the plain language of the agreements and federal statute allowed the Secretary of the Air Force to require repayment when the cadet did not fulfill active duty, and found no waiver, estoppel, or other defenses applicable.
