Roy Winfield Harper

This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by Aetna Casualty and Surety Company against General Dynamics Corporation seeking a ruling that Aetna has no obligation to defend, indemnify, or pay under multiple commercial general liability policies for costs arising from hazardous waste contamination at sixteen sites across eight states, including clean-up expenses, natural resource damages, and related claims under CERCLA, state statutes, and common law. The court addresses cross-motions for summary judgment on the remaining issues after prior partial rulings, focusing on defense costs, settlement payments, and indemnity for sites such as the New York City Landfills, Review Avenue, and Cannons Engineering sites. The reasoning centers on policy interpretation, including whether response costs qualify as covered "damages," the scope of pollution exclusion clauses, the meaning of "occurrence," and application of Eighth Circuit precedent like Continental Ins. Co. v. NEPCCO to determine coverage for expected or intended pollution events.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit filed in Missouri state court by C.H. on behalf of a minor child against the American Red Cross and Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital, seeking damages for complications from cryoprecipitate transfusions allegedly contaminated with the AIDS virus between 1984 and 1985. The defendants removed the case to federal district court, asserting federal jurisdiction based on the Red Cross's status as a federally chartered corporation under statutes including 28 U.S.C. § 1349 and 36 U.S.C. § 2, along with pendent jurisdiction for the hospital. The court determined that removal was improper and remanded the case to state court, reasoning that 28 U.S.C. § 1349 limits federal jurisdiction over suits against federally incorporated entities unless the United States owns more than half of the capital stock, which does not apply to the Red Cross, and that other asserted grounds for removal, such as separate and independent claims, were not satisfied.

procedurefederal power

In Kempf v. Kempf, a wife sued her husband in federal court under the federal wiretapping statute (Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968) after he recorded her telephone conversations using a device attached to a phone in their shared marital home; she also asserted a state-law invasion of privacy claim. The recordings were made while the couple was living together and were later used by the husband in state divorce proceedings where he alleged marital misconduct. The district court granted the husband's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the federal claim. The court reasoned that Congress did not intend Title III to cover interspousal wiretapping in a shared home during an intact marriage, citing legislative history and the traditional deference of federal courts to state courts on domestic relations matters.

criminal lawfamily lawfederal power

This case concerned IRS assessments of penalties under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 against a consulting corporation, its related partnership, and several individuals for unpaid federal withholding and FICA taxes owed by three financially distressed barge and shipyard companies. The plaintiffs sought refunds and abatements of the assessments, while the government counterclaimed to collect the balances. The court upheld the assessments against Donelan Phelps & Company, Inc., Donelan Phelps & Company, Thomas E. Phelps, Arthur Bourey, and Cynthia Kretmar, finding they were responsible persons who acted willfully by failing to pay the taxes when they had authority over the companies' finances and knew of the delinquencies. However, the court ruled for Patrick M. Donelan individually, concluding he had no control or knowledge regarding the tax payments, and awarded him a refund, abatement, and litigation costs.

taxesfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a construction company's claim for an incentive fee under a contract to build a HUD-financed low-cost housing project for the elderly. The plaintiff argued it had substantially completed the project early enough to qualify for the fee based on the AIA general conditions, while the defendants applied a HUD contract provision defining substantial completion as the date of HUD's final inspection report, which occurred after the deadline. The court held that the HUD contract's provisions took precedence over inconsistent AIA terms per the contract's explicit language and statutory authority, making HUD's determination controlling absent fraud or gross mistake. It further found no basis to extend the completion date. Judgment was entered for the defendants, denying the fee.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case concerned plaintiffs' lawsuit against a brokerage firm and associated individuals alleging violations of federal securities laws under the 1934 Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, state securities laws, RICO, and multiple common law claims such as fraud, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty, all arising from securities trading. Defendants moved to compel arbitration pursuant to arbitration clauses in the plaintiffs' customer agreements. The court ordered arbitration of the state-law claims based on the Federal Arbitration Act and the Supreme Court's ruling in Dean Witter Reynolds v. Byrd, but retained the federal securities and RICO claims for judicial resolution under precedents like Wilko v. Swan and Surman v. Merrill Lynch that prohibit arbitration of such federal claims, and stayed the federal proceedings pending completion of the arbitration.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a Missouri corporation suing an Illinois corporation for payment of $11,828.01 for goods sold and delivered between 1983 and 1984. The court considered entering a default judgment after the defendant failed to respond, but raised concerns about jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff provided evidence of the debt but no proof that the defendant was a valid existing corporation or that it had sufficient contacts with Missouri to allow suit there. Citing precedents like Rosenberg Bros. and Helicopteros Nacionales, the court found insufficient basis for jurisdiction and dismissed the case without prejudice.

procedure

This case concerned a dispute between Central Hardware Company and the Central States Pension Fund over the company's attempt, via collective bargaining with its union, to contribute to the Fund only for existing employees while enrolling future hires in a separate pension plan. The plaintiff alleged breach of the Trust Agreement, tortious interference, and Sherman Act violations through an unlawful tying arrangement. The court held that the Fund breached its contractual obligations by rejecting contributions for employees hired before May 19, 1982, and issued an injunction requiring acceptance of those payments, but rejected the antitrust claims. The reasoning rested on the terms of the Trust Agreement and the conclusion that benefits for present versus future employees were not two distinct products in the market for tying purposes under precedents such as Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between Swan Construction Co. and its insurer, Bituminous Casualty Corp., over whether the insurer had a duty to defend Swan in a lawsuit brought by National Tea Company for damage to a supermarket floor and subfloor installed by Swan. Swan sought recovery of defense costs, a settlement contribution, and other damages after the insurer reserved rights and Swan hired its own counsel. The court granted summary judgment to the insurer, holding that exclusion (x) in the policy's completed operations hazard endorsement applied because the underlying complaint alleged damage only to Swan's own work product after project completion. Under Missouri law, the court compared the policy language to the complaint allegations and found no potential coverage, so no duty to defend existed.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case concerned Anheuser-Busch's claims of trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition against Stroh Brewery over the latter's planned use of the term LA on labels for its reduced-alcohol beer products. Anheuser-Busch had begun marketing its own LA-branded malt beverage in late 1983 after obtaining federal label approval and had applied to register the mark, while Stroh announced its competing LA-labeled beers shortly thereafter. The court examined extensive evidence on consumer perception, industry usage, advertising expenditures, and prior reduced-alcohol products to determine whether LA functioned as a protectible arbitrary or suggestive trademark or instead constituted a generic or merely descriptive term for low-alcohol beer. It concluded that LA was not generic, was capable of serving as a source identifier, and was therefore entitled to protection, resulting in the issuance of a permanent injunction barring Stroh from using the mark.

business & regulatory

This case involved a collision on the Mississippi River by the M/V NORTHERN KING that damaged and closed a railroad bridge for 91 days, leading to claims by railroad employees for lost wages and benefits due to the shutdown. The petitioners, the barge owner and charterer, moved to dismiss the employees' class action claims for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that under the precedent of Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, claimants without a proprietary interest in the damaged bridge cannot recover damages for negligent interference with their contractual employment relationships.

torts & liability

The case concerns debtors who ran a turkey farm and had defaulted on loans from Brookfield Production Credit Association, secured by liens on their crops, livestock, machinery, and accounts. After the debtors filed for Chapter 11 reorganization, triggering an automatic stay on foreclosure, the bankruptcy court lifted the stay, finding that the debtors could not offset the costs of preserving the collateral and had not offered adequate protection for the creditor's interest, valued at $645,934. The district court affirmed, holding that the bankruptcy court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous and that the creditor could not raise an additional issue about its security interest in growing crops without a cross-appeal. The court applied standards from the Bankruptcy Code and rules on appeals, rejecting the debtors' arguments for offsets under 11 U.S.C. § 506(c).

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

Ozark Air Lines sued to vacate an arbitration award by its systems board of adjustment that granted two pilots occupational injury pay under the collective bargaining agreement with ALPA, rather than regular sick leave. ALPA counterclaimed to enforce the award, which had been issued after the board (including a neutral referee) resolved a deadlock by finding it had jurisdiction to interpret the agreement's occupational injury provisions and decide the claims on the merits. The court granted summary judgment to ALPA, enforcing the award under the Railway Labor Act because review is narrowly limited to statutory grounds and the board's actions comported with its authority to interpret and apply the agreement.

labor & employment

In this case, property owners sued the City of Hannibal in state court for inverse condemnation under the Missouri Constitution, alleging that flooding on their land resulted from overflows in the city's sewer system caused in part by a sewage treatment plant built to comply with EPA requirements under the Clean Water Act. The City filed a third-party petition against the EPA seeking indemnification for any damages owed, and the EPA removed the case to federal court before moving to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court dismissed the third-party claim against the EPA, holding that sovereign immunity barred the suit because no unequivocal waiver of immunity existed for such monetary claims, that any non-tort money claim exceeding $10,000 fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Claims Court, and that Federal Tort Claims Act requirements had not been satisfied if the claim sounded in tort. The court remanded the remaining state-law claims to the Circuit Court of Marion County, Missouri.

environmentfederal powerprocedureproperty

The case involved a Navy serviceman who sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for alleged negligent medical treatment received at military facilities between 1977 and 1979, after he was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List due to an injury sustained in a 1975 ship collision. The plaintiff argued that the treatment occurred while he was in a non-active status and leading a civilian life, distinguishing it from his initial service-related injury. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Feres doctrine barred the claim. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff's military status on the TDRL, combined with treatment at a naval hospital tied to his service, made the alleged negligence incident to military service, and the claim was effectively a continuation of an in-service injury rather than an independent post-service tort.

federal powertorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves an appeal by a bankruptcy trustee and his attorney from the bankruptcy court's award of compensation for their services in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. The debtors had undervalued their residence, leading the trustee to seek recovery of non-exempt assets, but the bankruptcy court allowed the debtors to amend their exemptions. The district court affirmed the awards of $64.10 for the trustee's expenses and $150 for the attorney's services, reasoning that the bankruptcy judge has discretion in determining reasonable compensation under 11 U.S.C. § 330 and did not abuse that discretion, as the trustee performed no compensable services beyond documented expenses.

procedure

The case centered on Shelter Mutual Insurance Company's attempt to recover over $725,000 in losses from its holdings of 1972 and 1966 municipal bonds issued by Public Water Supply District No. 7 of Jefferson County, Missouri, through claims against the district, its officials, underwriters, accountants, lawyers, and other parties. Shelter alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, along with aiding and abetting, common law fraud, conspiracy, and negligence; plaintiff-intervenor Traders Bank raised similar federal and state claims. The district court considered six motions for summary judgment and identified subject matter jurisdiction over the federal securities claims (and thus pendent state claims) as the threshold issue. The court's reasoning examined whether transactions involving the bonds, including potential pledges, qualified as "sales" or "offers" under the 1934 Act, citing precedents from multiple federal circuits on the statutory definitions and scope of securities fraud liability.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, investors Roger and Kathleen Surman sued their broker Merrill Lynch and an account executive for losses from high-risk stock trades between 1979 and 1980, alleging violations of federal and Missouri securities laws in Counts I and II, along with common-law fraud in Counts III and IV seeking actual and punitive damages. The defendants moved to compel arbitration of the common-law counts under arbitration clauses in the parties' broker, option, and commodity agreements, and to stay those proceedings until the court resolved the statutory claims. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the Federal Arbitration Act permits arbitration of the common-law claims but that severance was inappropriate because all counts rested on the same set of facts describing a single course of conduct by the defendants; separating them would require duplicative proceedings by the court and an arbitrator. The statutory claims themselves were not arbitrable under Supreme Court precedent and state law. The court did not reach the plaintiffs' argument that the agreements were unenforceable adhesion contracts.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose when the EEOC issued a Commissioner's charge alleging race and sex discrimination at a Shell Oil refinery and served Shell with an administrative subpoena for related employment records and data. Shell filed suit to quash the subpoena, arguing lack of authority, conflict with the Federal Reports Act, and improper disclosure risks, while the EEOC sought enforcement in a consolidated action. The court denied Shell's motion to quash and granted enforcement of the subpoena as modified, holding that the inquiry was within the agency's authority, the information was relevant and material, and burdensomeness alone did not justify refusal. It ruled that the EEOC could access but not demand copies of documents and barred disclosure to outside consultants, while denying motions to strike certain defenses and for protective orders on discovery.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a federal air traffic controller suing his union, the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO), for malicious interference with his employment by the FAA through workplace harassment, shunning, unsafe routing of aircraft, and false complaints aimed at getting him fired or demoted. The district court granted summary judgment on liability under Count III, holding that findings from a prior administrative proceeding by the Assistant Secretary of Labor-Management Relations (upheld on appeal) had res judicata effect because the parties had a full opportunity to litigate the issues in an adversarial hearing. After a trial on damages, the court awarded $165,000 in compensatory damages and $650,000 in punitive damages, finding the union's acts were willful and wanton based on the administrative record and additional evidence of a pattern of coercive conduct tied to union politics.

labor & employmenttorts & liability