Recently in Injury & Tort Law Category

Federal judges have considerable power, but their influence wanes beyond U.S. borders.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan "overstepped his authority" when he tried to block enforcement of an $18 billion judgment against Chevron worldwide, reports The Washington Post.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff gets peeved whenever the Securities and Exchange Commission settles a case with a mega-bank for minor bucks.

In 2009, Judge Rakoff blocked an initial SEC settlement with Bank of America over misleading disclosures because “the settlement did not resolve who was responsible for the violation,” reports The New York Times. In November, Rakoff similarly blocked an SEC settlement with Citigroup over a mortgage-bond deal because the SEC didn’t provide the court with facts “upon which to exercise even a modest degree of independent judgment.”

Dick Wolf taught us the basics of criminal prosecution long before law professors could shape our malleable minds. "In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police who investigate crime and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders."

As it applies to our world now, we view these "two, separate, yet equally important groups" in terms of qualified immunity and prosecutorial immunity.

Frankly, we get so wrapped up in police officers' qualified immunity appeals that we forget about absolute prosecutorial immunity. That changes - at least briefly - today with this Second Circuit Court of Appeals opinion.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that a widower could move forward with limited discovery in his 9/11 lawsuit alleging Afghanistan's involvement in the September 11 attacks.

Plaintiff-Appellee John Doe, whose wife died in the al-Qaeda attacks, filed suit in 2002 against Osama Bin Laden and Afghanistan. Doe's complaint alleged assault and battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy, wrongful death and violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against two groups of plaintiffs on Wednesday, denying federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) claims stemming from staggering subprime mortgage losses during the peak of the mortgage crisis.

In the first suit, Gray v. Citigroup, Inc., the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against 153,000 workers whose 401(k) plans were depleted as a result of Citigroup's subprime-related losses.

The Second Circuit ruled today that a prisoner who sued under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) was not entitled to a jury trial on disputed factual issues relating to his exhaustion of administrative remedies. In other words, a court will not empanel a jury to evaluate a plaintiff’s claim that the dog ate his homework.

Plaintiff Rafael Messa, an inmate of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (“DOCS”), was injured during a prison yard fight with the defendants, a group of correctional officers, and was hospitalized in the prison infirmary. In 2003, Messa brought a pro se action against defendants and other DOCS employees, alleging excessive force and other Eighth Amendment and due process violations in connection with the fight.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Consolidated Edison may proceed with its lawsuit claiming the diesel fuel tanks permitted by the Port Authority to be under the twin towers fueled the fire during the September 11th attacks.

This Second Circuit opinion reversed the district court decision on the lease agreement between ConEd and the Port Authority. The appellate opinion said that the 43-year old lease agreement permitted ConEd to bring a reimbursement lawsuit against the Port Authority for the cost of rebuilding the substation, due to the negligence of the Port Authority in allowing the construction of the diesel tanks, reports Courthouse News.

Action Seeking Indemnification From Insurer

In 10 Ellicott Square Court Corp. v. Mountain Valley Indemn. Co., No. 10-0799, an action seeking defense and indemnification from defendant insurance company based on an underlying personal injury lawsuit, the Second Circuit certifies the following question to the New York Court of Appeals:  In a case brought against an insurer in which a plaintiff seeks a declaration that it is covered under an insurance policy issued by that insurer, does a certificate of insurance issued by an agent of the insurer that states that the policy is in force but also bears language that the certificate is not evidence of coverage, is for informational purposes only, or other similar disclaimers, estop the insurer from denying coverage under the policy?

RICO Action Dismissal Affirmed

In Norex Petro. Ltd. v. Access Indus., Inc., No. 07-4553,  a RICO action alleging various injuries to plaintiff arising from the activities of defendants' alleged international criminal enterprise, the court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint where 1) the question of the justiciability of the RICO claims is properly one of whether the complaint adequately states a claim for relief; and 2) because the RICO statute lacked a clear statement of extraterritorial reach, plaintiff's claims are barred.