Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Kwabena Wadeer suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred while he was attempting to avoid an unidentified vehicle. Plaintiff filed a UM claim against New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company (NJM), his insurer. The insurance policy provided $100,000 in UM and UIM coverage. NJM made no offers to attempt to settle plaintiff's UM claim and the parties proceeded to private arbitration pursuant to the terms of the policy. The panel determined that plaintiff was 30% liable for the accident, the phantom vehicle was 70% liable, and plaintiff was entitled to a net award of $87,500. NJM rejected the $87,500 arbitration award and demanded a trial. By letter, plaintiff's attorney acknowledged NJM s rejection of the arbitration award and notified NJM that he believed it was acting in bad faith by rejecting that award. Plaintiff submitted an Offer of Judgment to NJM in the amount of $95,000 and reiterated his belief that defendant's conduct was in bad faith. NJM rejected the offer and the case proceeded to trial. The jury determined that the phantom vehicle was 100% liable for the underlying accident and awarded plaintiff $210,000 for pain and suffering and $12,175 in lost wages. Plaintiff thereafter moved to enter judgment for the full amount of the verdict, notwithstanding the $100,000 policy limit, as well as for prejudgment interest on the verdict and attorneys fees. During argument on the motion, plaintiff's counsel raised the issue of bad faith, contending that defendant was on notice of the claim. In response, NJM argued that plaintiff failed to plead bad faith in his complaint. The trial judge entered an order reducing and molding the jury verdict to conform to the insurance policy limit of $100,000 and awarding plaintiff attorneys fees and prejudgment interest. In his accompanying statement of reasons, the trial judge found that NJM s actions did not constitute bad faith because NJM had fairly debatable reasons for denying the benefits of the policy. Plaintiff and NJM filed cross-appeals. Plaintiff contended the trial court should not have molded the verdict to the policy limits because NJM acted in bad faith. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial judge's modified jury verdict, but reversed the award of attorneys fees and expenses. Plaintiff then filed a separate complaint alleging that NJM breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing to make a settlement offer to plaintiff and by failing to settle the claim in a timely manner. NJM moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff's complaint was barred by the entire controversy doctrine, res judicata, and/or collateral estoppel. After review, the Supreme Court agreed that plaintiff's bad faith claim was barred in this action under the principle of res judicata because it was raised, fairly litigated, and determined by the trial court in the first litigation. View "Wadeer v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The widow of Sherman Shatwell sued her husband's medical care providers for negligence after a missed diagnosis. Shatwell complained of neck pain, and was sent home with antibiotics. By the time he learned the pain was caused by cancer, it was too late to treat it. Two weeks before trial, some of the medical providers settled out of court. Dr. Kenneth Phillips remained a party to the case. Days before jury selection, Phillips sought permission from the court to amend the pretrial order so he could amend his trial strategy, including adding new jury instructions, exhibits, and witnesses to support his new defense. The district court denied the motion, and the doctor was ultimately found liable for damages totaling over $1 million. On appeal Phillips argued the district court erred by not allowing him to amend the pretrial order. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Monfore v. Phillips" on Justia Law

Defendant Marion Villegas appealed the district court's grant of plaintiff Lillian Malm's motion to reopen her personal injury lawsuit, some six years after the case had been marked inactive and closed. The court denied Villegas' motion to reconsider and her motion to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute, despite the passage of more than seven years between the filing and service of complaint. Relying on Malm's self-reported efforts to find and serve Villegas, and Villegas' failure to demonstrate prejudice from the delay, the district court found that service was had within a reasonable time. After review, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded service was delayed for an unreasonable amount of time, and that the district court abused its discretion by not dismissing the lawsuit for failure to prosecute. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case to the district court for entry of dismissal. View "In re Malm v. Villegas" on Justia Law

Johnson, a long-time city employee (garbage collectors) was denied utility services by Memphis Light, Gas & Water, a division of the city, in February 2010 because he did not possess a state-issued photo identification card. Johnson, born in rural Mississippi, lacked a birth certificate, was illiterate and had intellectual disabilities that made it difficult for him to navigate the process of obtaining the necessary state identification. He lived without utilities for more than 18 months and died of heat stroke in August 2011. His wife and sister sued MLGW under 42 U.S.C. 1983; the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), Tenn. Code 29-20-205.; and Tennessee’s wrongful death statute, Tenn. Code 20-5-106. The court granted summary judgment for MLGW on the grounds that all of Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the statutes of limitations. The Sixth Circuit reversed, finding sufficient evidence that Johnson was of unsound mind to apply the state's earlier tolling statute. View "Johnson v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div." on Justia Law

Daer filed a personal injury suit, alleging material and design defects in a tire manufactured by Yokohama and sold by Costco. Costco settled for $5.5 million and Yokohama for $1.1 million. National, as excess insurer of Costco, sued Yokohama and its insurers (Tokio) to recover the costs of defending plus money paid on behalf of Costco to settle that lawsuit. National, as subrogee of Costco, sought recovery based on an express indemnity provision in the supplier agreement between Costco and Yokohama, and alleged breach of Yokohama’s contractual insurance obligations. It sued Tokio for indemnity and contribution. The court ruled in limine that National’s proof of a tire defect would be limited to the opinions of Daer’s expert in the underlying case. After National made its opening statement in a proceeding to determine whether a tire defect was a cause of Daer’s accident, the court dismissed the express indemnity claim. Having determined that the tire was not defective, the court granted summary adjudication as to claims based on refusal to defend and Yokohama’s breach of insurance obligations. The court awarded Yokohama $863,706.75 in fees as the prevailing party on the indemnity claim. The court of appeal reversed in part, holding that the court erred in excluding relevant, material expert evidence on a matter properly subject to expert opinion. View "Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Velasquez worked at a company that made food flavorings, moving diacetyl, in closed and open containers. He breathed ambient diacetyl particles while mixing liquid and dry flavorings. Material safety data sheets attached to the containers warned that diacetyl was “harmful by inhalation,” but, consistent with industry practices at the time, did not warn of specific risks. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health did not issue exposure limits until years later. During a 2005 incident, Velasquez inhaled fumes from a concentration that included acetaldehyde, but not diacetyl. He experienced trouble breathing and sought medical attention. Velasquez returned to the hospital twice in the next two months. In 2005, Velasquez’s supervisor took him to a clinic where a “company doctor” told him he could not continue working for the company in his condition. In 2006 Velasquez was diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans, a rare lung disease which is usually progressive and fatal. He filed suit. After finding the issue relevant to Velasquez’s ability to receive a lung transplant, the judge advised prospective jurors that Velasquez is an undocumented immigrant. The court entered judgment on the jury’s special verdict, including findings that the supplier’s acts were not a substantial factor in causing Velasquez’s harm. The court of appeal reversed, based on the error in disclosing Velasquez’s status to jurors. View "Velasquez v. Centrome, Inc." on Justia Law

An Iowa plaintiff sued a nonresident corporation (Defendant) for unfair competition and civil conspiracy. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion, concluding that general jurisdiction was established because Defendant’s passive website held Defendant out as having a manufacturing facility in Sioux Center, Iowa. In fact, the Sioux Center facility was owned and operated by a separate Iowa defendant that supplied the product to Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed the order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss but on an alternative ground, holding (1) the district court erred by exercising general jurisdiction over Defendant based solely on the inaccurate statement on Defendant’s website, as there was no proof that Defendant was “essentially at home” in Iowa to establish general jurisdiction; but (2) the totality of Defendant’s contacts with Iowa were sufficient to subject it to specific jurisdiction on claims related to those contacts. View "Sioux Pharm, Inc. v. Summit Nutritionals Int’l, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Tricia Moses was involved in a rear-end motor vehicle collision where defendant-appellee Aaron Drake's vehicle struck Moses' vehicle. Drake pled guilty to a citation for following a motor vehicle too closely. At the time of the incident, Moses was 26 weeks pregnant. Due to her past medical history, Moses was in a program for high-risk pregnancies. After the collision, Moses delivered her child prematurely at 31 weeks. While Moses' complaint contained allegations of trauma-induced premature birth and trauma-induced mental and physical difficulties relating to the child, Moses did not oppose dismissal of all claims pertaining to the child. Due to the severe nature of the claimed injuries in Moses' complaint, it appeared initially that Drake needed multiple experts to address the various claims. Drake's counsel requested at least six months to prepare expert reports after Moses' expert reports were due. After Moses failed to meet a deadline, Drake filed a motion to dismiss. In response, Moses' counsel contacted Drake's counsel, and the parties agreed to a stipulation modifying the scheduling order and extending the expert disclosure deadlines. The stipulation was then approved by the Superior Court. When a new deadline was set, Moses produced a one-paragraph opinion from her treating physician, Dr. Stephen Ogden. Drake filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that Dr. Ogden's opinion was legally insufficient because he used the word "feasible." Drake argued that "feasible" did not meet the standard for reasonable medical probability because the dictionary definition is synonymous with "possible." On appeal of the district court's grant of summary judgment to Drake, Moses argued: (1) Dr. Odgen's medical opinion was sufficient to deny Drake's motion for summary judgment on the claim that the medical opinion was legally deficient; and (2) in the alternative, that the denial of her motion to reargue was improper given Dr. Ogden's "clarifications" of his opinion. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment. View "Moses v. Drake" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a town official for the town of Raymond, claimed that Michael Reynolds, a fellow town official, told the sheriff’s department that Plaintiff had driven while intoxicated, that the reports were false, and the false statements damaged his reputation. Plaintiff brought suit in state superior court, alleging state law claims for defamation and false light invasion of privacy, as well as federal claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The case was removed to federal court on the basis of the federal claims. The district court dismissed the federal claims and proceeded to resolve the state law claims. The First Circuit (1) affirmed the dismissal of the federal claim; and (2) vacated the dismissal of Plaintiff’s state law claims as to Reynolds and remanded the claims to state court, holding the state law claims involved resolution of a potential conflict between Maine’s Anti-SLAPP statute and Maine’s Constitution, a conflict that “is best resolved by the Maine courts.” View "Desjardins v. Willard" on Justia Law

Williams sued his employer, BNSF Railway, under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. 51, alleging an employment related injury. BNSF filed a third-party complaint for contribution and indemnity against QTS. A jury rendered a verdict, finding that plaintiff’s injuries resulted from his employment, but assessed 50% of the fault to Wllams, 37.5% to BNSF, and 12.5% to QTS. The jury also rendered a verdict in favor of QTS on BNSF’s claim for contractual indemnity, finding that BNSF’s notice of claim was untimely. The appellate court dismissed BNSF’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the notice of appeal was untimely. BNSF had filed its notice of appeal within 30 days of the entry of the written order, but 72 days after the trial court’s oral ruling on BNSF’s post-trial motion. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, citing Supreme Court Rule 272, which states: “judgment is entered at the time it is entered of record.” The trial court’s oral pronouncement was not entered of record in the law record book. View "Williams v. BNSF Ry. Co." on Justia Law