The Sixth Circuit decided a criminal case involving defendant's double jeopardy violation claim and an insurer's claim for reimbursement for settlement contributions.
In Colvin v. Sheets, No. 08-4353, the court faced a challenge to the district court's grant of defendant's request for habeas relief and reversal of a decision by the court of appeals and holding that there was no manifest necessity for a new trial. In reversing the district court's decision, the court held that not only did the district court fail to abide by the deference required of Washington itself, but violated the AEDPA in concluding that the state court unreasonably applied Washington.
In Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of America v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., Inc., 09-5113, the main issues were whether the insurer was entitled to reimbursement for its settlement contribution from its insured and whether the disparagement was part of the underlying litigation at the time of the settlement. In affirming the district court's decision, the court held that an insurer may seek reimbursement for settlement funds paid on claims later determined to be noncovered in the narrow circumstances posed in this case and in Blue Ridge. Also, the district court did not err in finding that disparagement was not part of the underlying litigation at time of the settlement.