Consolidated Cos. Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 09-30178, involved an action against a commercial-property insurer seeking proceeds arising out of Hurricane Katrina-related damages. The court affirmed in part judgment for plaintiff on the grounds that 1) plaintiff was not required to draw a bright line in its evidence between loss stemming from property damage and loss stemming from market conditions; and 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant's motion to enter a remittitur adjusting the verdict downward by $3 million. However, the court vacated in part on the ground that the district court informed jurors that the policy was designed to place the insured in the position that it would have been in if there had been no interruption, but the court did not allow jurors to make the reduction for charges and expenses necessary to do that.
PSKS, Inc. v. Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc., No. 09-40506, concerned an antitrust action alleging resale price maintenance. The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that 1) the district court properly rejected the alleged market definitions of "retail market for Brighton's women's accessories" and the "wholesale sale of brand-name women's accessories to independent retailers"; 2) plaintiff failed to allege any relevant factors that would indicate a plausible anticompetitive effect; and 3) the district court rightly dismissed the horizontal-restraint claims as barred by the mandate rule.