This case concerns whether three insurers—Maxum, Security, and FSIC—had a duty to defend and indemnify their insured, M&M Rental Center, in an underlying TCPA class action lawsuit alleging that unsolicited faxes violated recipients' privacy rights. The court held that Maxum and Security had a duty to defend M&M under their commercial general liability policies' coverage for advertising injury arising from invasion of privacy, while FSIC did not because its policy defined personal and advertising injury more narrowly and did not encompass the claims. The court further ruled that FSIC could recover its defense costs from Maxum and Security via equitable contribution, based on the timing of the faxes and the policies' coverage periods, but left open questions of indemnification duties. The decision relied on the policy language, the nature of TCPA fax-blast claims as implicating seclusion interests, and allocation provisions in the policies.
business & regulatorycivil rightstorts & liability
The case involves Vincent DePinto and his company DePinto Drywall suing Sherwin-Williams and Pulte Homes over problems with paint supplied for a housing development project, including allegations that the paint was defective and caused damage, along with claims that the defendants made defamatory statements, intentionally interfered with DePinto Drywall's customer relationships, and caused emotional distress to DePinto. The district court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the defamation, interference, and emotional distress counts. The court reasoned that there was insufficient evidence to support the defamation and interference claims, that the individual plaintiff lacked standing to pursue claims belonging to the corporation, and that the facts did not establish a basis for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
This case involves a patent dispute between Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (CBOE) and International Securities Exchange, LLC (ISE) over U.S. Patent No. 6,618,707, titled 'Automated Exchange for Trading Derivative Securities.' CBOE filed for declaratory judgment that the patent was invalid and not infringed by its Hybrid Trading System, after ISE had sued CBOE for infringement in another district; the case was transferred and the court had issued claim construction rulings. The court granted CBOE's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement, finding no genuine issue of material fact that CBOE's system, which combines electronic and open outcry trading with specific order routing and allocation rules under the Ultimate Matching Algorithm, did not meet the patent's requirements for an automated exchange performing the claimed matching and allocating steps. The decision rested on the lack of evidence showing that CBOEdirect performed the patented functions as construed, leading to termination of the case.
In Wendorf v. Landers, plaintiffs sued their gym over a one-time $60 fee deducted electronically from their account, claiming it violated the Electronic Fund Transfers Act because the fee was not covered by their written preauthorization for monthly dues and services, along with related Illinois statutory, contract, and conversion claims. The district court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. It reasoned that the facts alleged a plausible EFTA violation under 15 U.S.C. § 1693e(a), as the charge was explicitly not a dues increase and fell outside the scope of the existing EFT authorization for regular payments.
Pamela Harris, an African-American IDOC employee, sued the State of Illinois Department of Corrections and several officials, alleging race discrimination and retaliation under federal and state laws after she reported an incident of inmate abuse by a correctional officer and related cover-up. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing counts against IDOC and officials in their official capacities on sovereign immunity grounds, dismissing certain state law claims without prejudice for refiling in state court, and dismissing one retaliation claim in part, while allowing the remaining counts to proceed. The decision rested on analysis of federal jurisdiction over the claims, application of state sovereign immunity rules to bar some actions in federal court, and sufficiency of the pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6).
This case involves appeals by J.P. Morgan Chase Bank and a bankruptcy trustee from rulings in an adversary proceeding concerning a promissory note related to the sale of a printing press and the bank's actions after the seller's bankruptcy filing. The trustee sought damages for the bank's alleged violations of the automatic stay, UCC § 9-207, and Bankruptcy Code § 549. The district court reviewed the bankruptcy court's findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo, and ultimately affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision in part and reversed it in part.
