The case involved a declaratory judgment action by Continental Insurance Company to determine whether its Commercial General Liability policy issued to Nicholas Benton's sole proprietorship covered an accident in which Benton died while performing rigging services on a vessel owned by Domino's Pizza, Inc. The court granted summary judgment to the insurer and denied coverage. The core reasoning was that the policy's business description and classification limited coverage to boat building activities as represented in the application, excluding servicing work, and that even if the incident fell within the insuring clause, Benton would be deemed an employee triggering the employee exclusion.
This case arose from plaintiffs' 1986 lawsuit against a bank asserting contract and tort claims based on an alleged agreement for a $1.3 million mortgage loan that was never finalized with a formal commitment letter. After the bank was acquired and the FDIC was appointed receiver, the FDIC moved for summary judgment, asserting protection under 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e) and the D'Oench doctrine. The court granted the motion, dismissing all claims. It reasoned that no written agreement satisfied the statute's requirements for approval by bank officials, execution, and recording, and that the tort claims (negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and breach of implied covenant) were derived from the same underlying facts as the invalid agreement and thus also barred.
business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedurefederal power
This case involved a class action lawsuit alleging sex discrimination in employment at the City University of New York under Title VII and Section 1983, which settled via a 1984 consent decree establishing a $7.5 million fund for compensatory relief. Plaintiffs sought an order requiring distribution of the settlement without any tax withholding, but the taxing authorities challenged the court's jurisdiction over them. The court referred the matter to a special master, who recommended amending the decree to allocate the fund (generally two-thirds to back pay and interest under Title VII, one-third to personal injury under Section 1983) to facilitate proper tax treatment. The court confirmed these recommendations, holding it lacked jurisdiction over the taxing authorities and denying relief as to them, while ordering the defendant to distribute the funds expeditiously under the amended decree.
The case involved female plaintiffs suing Ogilvy & Mather, Inc., an advertising agency, for sex discrimination in salaries under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After a bench trial, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on the reserved salary discrimination claim, incorporating previously omitted data on company officers into regression analyses while excluding non-compliant exhibits from both sides that added variables or altered data contrary to prior orders. The court addressed the statute of limitations by prioritizing studies of post-May 30, 1975 employment decisions but allowing limited consideration of earlier data as background evidence or to support a pattern-and-practice claim of continuing violation. It evaluated the parties' 1985 statistical reports, including Chow tests showing differences in pre- and post-limitations models, and various regressions controlling for factors such as education, experience, tenure, department, and job title to measure average male-female salary differences.
The case involved operators of Franklin Nursing Home suing New York state Medicaid officials, alleging violations of federal and state law in setting reimbursement rates for 1979-1981 on issues including start-up costs, accounting and reporting costs, salary ceilings, and real property and equipment cost ceilings. Plaintiffs sought corrected retroactive reimbursements plus declaratory and injunctive relief against the use of certain rate ceilings. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment and reasoned that some claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment or lacked standing, that certain state practices did not conflict with federal Medicaid requirements under Title XIX, and that reimbursement methodologies complied with applicable state regulations and the approved state plan.
This case involved a cargo damage claim in admiralty by Sumitomo America against ocean carrier Lloyd for harm to steel pipe shipped from Brazil to Houston on the M/V Sie Kim under bills of lading governed by COGSA. The court, after considering deposition transcripts, exhibits, and stipulations, found that the damage occurred prior to or during loading due to acts of the shipper and its agents in handling, storing, and stowing the pipe without adequate dunnage or segregation. The court concluded that Lloyd was not liable because it established a defense under COGSA for shipper-caused damage, the carrier exercised due care in the voyage and discharge, and no negligence by Lloyd or the discharging stevedores was proven to have caused the harm. Judgment was therefore entered for the defendant carrier.