Recently in Contract Law Category

In plaintiff's claim for insurance policy coverage of its directors and officers for fraudulent conveyance in Reliance-defendant's liquidation and against Hartford, who had taken over claims administration for defendant and assumed some of its liabilities, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Hartford is affirmed where: 1) the Hartford policy period does not include the amended Reliance policy period, and there is no basis to conclude that plaintiff could have reasonably expected its policy with Hartford to cover the Reliance policy; 2) the interrelated wrongful acts provision applies to bar coverage for the CCR and Claimants Committee actions under the Hartford policy; 3) other agreements do not make Hartford directly liable for the fraudulent conveyance actions; and 4) judicial estoppel does not apply to Hartford's invoking of the interrelated wrongful acts provision 

Read G-I Holdings v. Reliance Ins. Co., No. 07-2510

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil Action No. 00-cv-06189)  

District Judge: Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh.

Opinion Filed October 26, 2009

Judges

Before:  Scirica, Chief Judge, Ambro and Smith, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Ambro, Circuit Judge 

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant:  Anthony Bartell, McCarter & English; Stephen G. Weil, Jerold Oshinsky.

Counsel for Appellee:  Arnold R. Gerst, Brad M. Weintraub, Weiner Lesniak, Lawrence J. Bistany, Celestine M. Montague, White & Williams

District court's orders granting defendant-Lloyd's motion to compel arbitration of a disputed claim based on a set of reinsurance-of-reinsurance agreements and denying plaintiff-Century's motion to vacate an arbitration panel's subsequent award in favor of Lloyd's is affirmed where: 1) district court properly compelled arbitration of the dispute arising from the retrocessional agreements over Lloyd's failure to pay declaratory judgment expenses that Century had paid to its reinsured under reinsurance treaties; and 2) the district court properly denied Century's motion to vacate the arbitration award under 9. U.S.C. section 10(a)(3) as the arbitrators' decision to exclude evidence plaintiff proffered based on the evidence's irrelevance was well within their authority in conducting the arbitration.    

Read Century Indem. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, No. 08-2924

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-6004)  

District Judge: Honorable Legrome D. Davis

Opinion Filed October 15, 2009

Judges

Before:  McKee, Hardiman, and Greenberg, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Greenberg, Circuit Judge 

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant:  Carter G. Phillips, William M. Sneed, Melanie Jo Triebel, Sidley Austin LLP; Lawrence Nathanson

Counsel for Appellee:  Mark J. Hill, Mark J. Hill & Associates, John M. Wulfers, Hugh S. Balsam, Susan P. Jordan, Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP.

In a contract case arising from parties' efforts to resolve a dispute over the use of similar trademarks in their respective clothing lines, a magistrate judge's rulings are affirmed in part where both parties intended an informal document to be a binding contract and no reasonable jury could decide otherwise, and the terms of such document were sufficiently definite to warrant enforcement.  However, the case is remanded as the terms agreed to by the parties with respect to certain clauses were not sufficiently unambiguous to permit judicial interpretation of the contract. 

Read Am. Eagle Outfitters v. Lyle & Scott Ltd., No. 08-4807

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (No. 06-cv-00607)
District Judge: Honorable A,y Reynolds Hay

Opinion Filed September 11, 2009

Judges

Before:  Fuentes, Jordan, and Nygaard, Circuit Judges 
Opinion by: Fuentes, Circuit Judge 

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant:  Emily J. Barnhart, Dennis P. McCooe, Timothy D. Pescsenye, Laurence S. Shtasel, James T. Smith, Marc E. Weitzman, Susan B. Flohr, Charles R. Wolfe, Robert L. Byer, Susan G. Schwochau,  

Counsel for Appellee: Clay P. Hughes, Cynthia E. Kernick, Walter T. McGough, Jr., Kirsten R. Rydstrom, Richard T. Ting, Colin E. Wrabley, Theodore R. Remaklus. 

In a case involving an agreement by a union to indemnify and hold harmless an employer for the employer's withdrawal liability to a pension plan under ERISA and the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendment Act of 1980 (MPPAA), the existence of a union contract is not a jurisdictional requirement under section 301, and the case is ripe for adjudication. The district court's judgment is vacated and remanded where there are not enough "definite indications" of public policy in ERISA or the MPPAA to preclude an indemnification agreement between an employer and a third party for the employer's withdrawal liability, where the employer agrees that it will always remain primarily liable for the liability.      

Read Pittsburgh Mack Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'r, Local Union No. 66, No. 07-3938

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Civil No. 07-cv-00092)

District Judge: Honorable Gary L. Lnacaster

Argued September 29, 2008
Opinion Filed September 4, 2009

Judges

Before: Fisher, CHagares, and Hardiman, Circuit Judges 
Opinion by Circuit Judge Chagares

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant:  James P. Thomas, Richard I. Thomas, Pepper Hamilton LLP 

Counsel for Appellee:  Joshua M. Blook, Joshua M. Bloom and Associates, P.C.

District court's judgment, involving land title insurance policy dispute, is reversed where: 1) the district court erred in granting Commonwealth's motion to dismiss as in order to except expressly from ALTA 9 Endorsement coverage a right of refusal or other restrictions noted in paragraph 1(b)(2) of the Endorsement, an insurer must list those restrictions specifically in Schedule B: and 2) Commonwealth bore the burden of detecting the restrictions stated in the Declaration, and had to list those restrictions explicitly as exceptions to avoid covering loss from them.  

Read Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. , No. 06-2890

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 05-cv-00281)
District Judge: Honorable Ronald L. Buckwalter

Argued January 28,  2009
Opinion Filed August 31, 2009

Judges
Before:  Scirica, Chief Judge, Ambro and Smith, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Circuit Judge Ambro

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant.:  Justin K. Miller, C. Paul Scheuritzel.

Counsel for Appellee: Craig R. Blackman, Neal R. Troum.

In a licensing agreement dispute involving restriction of Styrofoam-type sales to certain Asian countries, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-licensee is affirmed where the "fully paid-up" license clearly expired along with defendant's intellectual property rights in the process, and as such, because defendant does not have continuing intellectual property rights in the process, the License Agreement has no continuing force.   

Read Nova Chem., Inc. v. Sekisui Plastics Co. LTD., No. 08-4090

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 06-cv-00478)
District Judge: Honorable David S. Cercone

Argued May 20,  2009
Opinion Filed August 28, 2009

Judges
Before:  Fuentes, Jordan and Nygaard, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Circuit Judge Fuentes

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: Walter H. Flamm, Jr., Michael J. McCaney, Jr.

Counsel for Appellee:  John M. McIntyre, David J.Bird