This case arose from a dispute over control of the domain name negril.com and associated website, with plaintiffs alleging that defendants converted the site, infringed copyrights, posted derogatory statements, and that Network Solutions, Inc. breached the domain registration agreement by altering ownership. The court addressed motions to dismiss for improper venue by NSI and for lack of personal jurisdiction by other defendants. It determined that a forum selection clause in the March 1999 NSI registration agreement required exclusive jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Virginia and that a substantial part of the events occurred there, making venue proper in Virginia under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). The court therefore granted NSI's venue motion in part and transferred the entire action to the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, rather than dismissing it.
In Arclar Co. v. Gates, the plaintiff coal company, as successor to rights granted in a 1905 Warranty Deed to Coal, sued the defendant landowner for specific performance of an option to purchase surface acreage needed for mining operations and for an injunction to prevent interference with a conveyor easement, both arising from deeds conveying coal rights and related surface options in Saline County, Illinois. The defendant moved to dismiss on grounds including the 75-year statute of limitations, lack of privity, laches, and the rule against restraints on alienation. The court denied the motion, holding that the claims were not time-barred because the option was a covenant running with the land that had been properly preserved, privity was not required for enforcement against a purchaser with notice, no unreasonable delay or prejudice supported laches, and the option was valid as it was limited to surface needs tied to mining the mineral estate rather than a bare restraint on alienation.
This case involved a products liability claim by plaintiff Hanks against defendant Kiswire, Ltd., alleging that a failed wire rope causing injury was manufactured by the defendant. The court addressed multiple pretrial motions, including quashing certain depositions as duplicative, denying a motion to compel those depositions, and striking the plaintiff's expert testimony from Donald Pellow. The expert opinion, which sought to link the failed rope to Kiswire through physical and chemical comparisons, was excluded because it did not satisfy the reliability and relevance requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Without admissible evidence identifying the manufacturer, the court granted Kiswire's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims with prejudice.
This case concerns whether excess Difference In Conditions insurance policies issued to Archer-Daniels-Midland cover marine expenditures (sue and labor costs to protect stranded barges and grain) and grain degradation losses stemming from the 1993 Mississippi River flood. The defendant insurers moved for partial summary judgment on two issues: lack of coverage for the marine expenditures and lack of coverage for the grain cargo. Applying Illinois contract law to the policy language, the court found the policies unambiguously exclude watercraft from coverage, so expenses to protect the barges themselves are not insured. The court also examined whether grain-related claims are barred by exclusions such as inherent vice or whether they qualify as covered perils under the policies' terms.
This case involves a dispute over the scope of coverage under a marine insurance policy issued by Phoenix Assurance Company to Archer-Daniels-Midland Company for the period from July 1, 1992, to July 1, 1993. Phoenix moved for partial summary judgment seeking a ruling that the policy does not cover losses incurred after the policy's expiration date or losses caused by delays in shipment. The court applied Illinois law to interpret the policy's unambiguous language, including its attachment clause, duration of risk clause, and delay exclusion provision, and found that coverage ends on the expiration date unless extended by notice and additional premium, with no coverage for delay-related losses. The court granted Phoenix's motion, holding that post-expiration losses and delay-caused losses are not covered under the plain terms of the contract.
This case arose from the Great Flood of 1993, which caused Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) to incur extra expenses obtaining raw materials for its processing plants after widespread crop damage raised costs and disrupted supply. ADM sought coverage for post-October 1, 1993 losses under contingent business interruption and extra expense provisions in difference-in-conditions insurance policies issued by the defendants, but the insurers denied those claims and moved for partial summary judgment. The court denied the motion, holding that the policy language was unambiguous and that coverage under Paragraph 13Q extended beyond the policies' October 1, 1993 expiration date. The reasoning centered on the definition of "Extra Expense" tied to a "Period of Restoration" that the policy expressly stated would not be limited by the policy's expiration.