Recently in Contract Law Category

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 Recently, the New Orleans-based court ruled in an unpublished opinion that a Baton Rouge law firm's associates were employees -- not independent contractors -- for tax purposes, according to Forbes.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.

Ultima creator Richard Garriott, better-known to the online gaming community as his alter ego Lord British, has 28 million reasons to be happy this week.

On Friday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a $32 million jury award - $28 million in damages, plus $4 million in attorneys fees and interest - in Garriott's Korean employment law dispute with NCsoft Corporation, a Korean company that develops and publishes massively multiplayer online (MMO) games.

Remember 2007? When foreclosure was king, and raising the debt ceiling, like going to the dentist, was one of those unpleasant tasks that you grudgingly faced every few years?

Those times were followed by a collective realization that everyone would be happier if mortgage servicers could work out payment plans with defaulting borrowers to avoid kicking families out of their homes and into court. Of course, nothing is ever easy when mortgages are involved, and the workout deals ultimately generated loads of litigation for lawyers.

Action Against DHL Regarding Failure to Collect COD Payments

In Tran Enters., LLC v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., No. 10-20115, an action claiming that defendant DHL failed to remit collect-on-delivery (COD) payments totaling $21,991.72 to plaintiff, the court affirmed summary judgment for defendant where plaintiff failed to present any summary judgment evidence that true conversion had occurred, instead merely offering the fact that it did not receive the checks.

Insurance Coverage Dispute

In Keller Foundations, Inc. v. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co., No. 08-50253, defendant's appeal from the district court's judgment holding that plaintiffs were entitled to defense and indemnity under a commercial general liability policy defendant issued to a third party, from whom plaintiffs acquired certain assets, the court reversed where plaintiffs agreed to assume liability for the particular losses in question and explicitly excluded the policy from the asset transfer.