Recently in Contract Law Category

Associated Gas & Oil Company, Limited bought two self-elevating liftboats -- Nicole and Kaitlyn -- from Offshore Marine Inc. (OMI) pursuant to an asset purchase agreement. Under the agreement, OMI agreed to install additional living quarters and accessories on the two vessels. OMI used its sister corporation, Tram Shipyards, Inc. to purchase the materials and complete the additional work.

In the course of installing the additional living quarters on the Nicole, Tram cut, extended, and re-welded the crane boom cradle stanchion of the hydraulic pedestal crane. Transporting the liftboats from Louisiana to Nigeria for an Associated contract proved problematic. The flotilla encountered rough seas, and the stanchion snapped at the site of the weld, causing the crane boom on the Nicole to swing wildly and crash into the additional living quarters.

There was damage. The boats had to divert from their course before ultimately returning to Louisiana for repairs, and they didn't make it to Nigeria for the contract. Associated suffered "a crippling loss of profits." So what's the proper path to remedy? Contract or tort?

While the legal profession clearly is not recession-proof, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill litigation has kept lawyers busy.

Lawyers are arguing civil liability, criminal liability, continuances, deposition appearances. The list just keeps going.

Last week, at least one of the many questions in the BP litigation was resolved. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that BP is covered by a Transocean insurance policy for up to $750 million in oil spill damages, Bloomberg reports.

Two contracts thwarted by the same natural disasters can have two different outcomes in litigation.

That's why it's important to carefully define your force majuere responsibilities in an agreement.

Insurance policies are written to favor the insurer by including coverage exclusions, and the courts won't help beneficiaries litigate around them.

Last week, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision to deny a widow's claim on an accidental death insurance policy, finding that the insurer did not have to pay under the policy's alcohol exclusion

Many health insurance plans require a patient to get pre-approval for services from an out-of-network service provider, except in cases of medical emergency, urgent care, or as otherwise provided under the terms of the plan. Monday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opened the door for some pre-approval-lacking patients to get coverage when a plan contains ambiguous referral terms.

Plaintiff-Appellant Nancy Koehler challenged a summary judgment ruling dismissing her suit to recover health insurance benefits under an Employee Retirement Income Security (ERISA) employee benefits plan after Aetna refused to reimburse her for care she received from an out-of-network specialist.

With the start of hurricane season less than a month away, the Gulf Coast is once again preparing to dance with Mother Nature. Residents are hopeful that this season will be known for respectful do-si-dos, rather than the high-velocity mosh pits that residents endured with Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Gustav, but gale force winds aren't the area's only foe in a storm. Lawyers and their clients inevitably end up battling insurance companies after every major hurricane.

A recent Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in a negligent misrepresentation appeal shows that those battles can be almost as devastating to flood insurance policy holders as the hurricanes themselves.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that two insurance companies must both defend and indemnify a Louisiana construction company in a copyright infringement lawsuit over architectural plans.

Following Louisiana jurisprudence, which requires ambiguities in insurance policies to be interpreted against the insurer, the appellate court applied a "but for" test to determine the extent of the companies' obligations.

Leave it to a lawyer to argue that associates are independent contractors and a law firm is an "attorney incubator" for tax purposes.

No judgment, mind you. We appreciate any creative argument to limit tax liability.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, does not share our appreciation for inventive ways of avoiding employment taxes. Recently, the New Orleans-based court ruled in an unpublished opinion that a Baton Rouge law firm's associates were employees -- not independent contractors -- for tax purposes, according to Forbes.

The New Orleans Saints have been rocked by plenty of bad news lately.

Last week, the NFL slapped the Louisiana franchise with the harshest penalties in league history for its illegal bounty program, and suspended head coach Sean Payton for a year. Then, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals announced that former punter Mitch Berger is stuck pursuing fraud claims against former deep snapper Kevin Houser in binding arbitration.

Since this is an appellate law blog, you already know which of these let-downs we have to cover.

It’s easy to vilify the perpetrators and beneficiaries of securities fraud — the one percent living in their ivory towers with their golden toilets — so we usually don’t mind when the long arm of the law reaches into a bank account to retrieve ill-gotten gains.

It’s slightly harder to cheer for disgorgement, however, when the American Cancer Society (ACS) is being disgorged.