In this case, Northland Insurance Company filed a federal declaratory judgment action against its insured Top Rank Trucking and others, seeking a ruling that it had no duty to defend or indemnify them under a commercial auto policy for claims arising from a fatal pedestrian-truck collision. The collision had already prompted a state-court wrongful death suit by the victim's estate representatives against Top Rank and the driver, in which Northland was not a party. The defendants moved to dismiss the federal suit, urging the court to decline jurisdiction under Brillhart because of the parallel state proceeding. The district court denied the motion, holding that the cases involved neither the same parties nor the same issues, as the federal action concerned only insurance coverage obligations absent from the state tort litigation.
This case is a declaratory judgment action between insurers AIG and RLI over responsibility for excess coverage after a motorcycle accident victim settled his bodily injury claim for $750,000. The primary Geico policy paid its $300,000 limit, RLI paid the remaining $450,000 under its $1 million umbrella policy, and RLI then sought partial reimbursement from AIG under its $5 million umbrella policy; both policies contained excess "other insurance" clauses. The court applied Florida choice-of-law rules and held that the identical excess clauses were mutually repugnant, requiring the insurers to contribute pro rata according to their limits, so AIG must reimburse RLI $375,000. It therefore granted RLI's cross-motion for summary judgment and denied AIG's motion.
This case involves a former employee suing Victoria's Secret Stores for sexual harassment and retaliation under the Florida Civil Rights Act, unpaid wages and minimum wage violations, and retaliation for reporting unpaid wages, along with a worker's compensation retaliation claim, all arising from events during her 2008-2009 employment. After the defendant removed the case to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction, the parties filed a joint stipulation and the plaintiff moved to remand. The court granted severance and remand of the worker's compensation claim and remanded the remaining counts to state court. The reasoning was that 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) bars removal of worker's compensation claims, and the defendant did not meet its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 after considering the plaintiff's evidence of mitigation and resolving all uncertainties in favor of remand.
This case involves plaintiff Larry L. Lea's challenge to the Social Security Administration's denial of his application for disability insurance benefits, based on impairments including coronary heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, and depressive disorder. The district court reviewed the ALJ's determination that Lea was not disabled and could perform other work, following a magistrate judge's recommendation to affirm. After an intervening Eleventh Circuit decision in Winschel, the court found that the ALJ's decision lacked substantial evidence because the hypothetical questions posed to the vocational expert failed to account for Lea's specific limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace. The court therefore reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to properly develop the record on Lea's ability to adjust to other work.
The case was a declaratory judgment action by State Farm against the personal representative of a deceased insured, seeking a ruling that no uninsured motorist coverage was available under two Maryland-issued automobile policies for a fatal 2007 motorcycle accident in Florida. The defendant argued that Florida law should apply and would allow additional benefits under those policies, while State Farm maintained that Maryland law governed and precluded coverage. The court analyzed choice-of-law factors, including the place of contracting and the parties' contacts, and concluded that Maryland law controlled the interpretation of the policies. Applying Maryland law, the court held that the policies did not extend uninsured motorist coverage to the accident and granted summary judgment to State Farm.
This case involved a dispute over whether an environmental insurance policy issued by Zurich to Mears covered the costs of temporarily relocating Mears' business operations during the remediation of a petroleum leak from underground storage tanks at its property. Mears argued that the relocation was required by local building and fire codes for safety reasons during the cleanup, while Zurich contended that such expenses were not "cleanup costs" under the policy and were excluded. The court granted summary judgment to Mears, holding that the relocation expenses qualified as necessary cleanup costs because they were mandated by governmental authority to safely complete the remediation, and the policy's exclusion for reconstruction or repair of buildings did not apply to these temporary measures. The decision was based on the policy language under New York law, which the parties agreed would govern.