John Garvan Murtha

In this case, Dan Murphy and Wendy Linnington, as assignees of Rusty Nail Acquisition, Inc., sued Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company alleging breach of the duty to defend and indemnify in an underlying personal injury action. The underlying complaint described Murphy being forcefully escorted out of the Rusty Nail bar and thrown or pushed down stairs by employees, which the plaintiffs framed as negligence claims. The insurance policy covered bodily injury but excluded coverage for expected or intended injuries, claims arising out of assault and battery, and related negligent hiring or supervision allegations. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion, holding that the factual allegations described intentional acts excluded from coverage, so there was no duty to defend or indemnify. The decision focused on the policy language and the underlying complaint's facts rather than the legal theories pleaded.

torts & liability

This case is a patent infringement dispute in which Chet’s Shoes sought a declaratory judgment that its rubber overshoes with studded soles do not infringe two patents held by Kastner for resilient soles containing retractable metal studs, while Kastner counterclaimed for infringement. After claim construction and discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment to Chet’s Shoes on non-infringement, holding that the accused products failed to meet key claim limitations including the requirement that studs retract within the sole material until flush with the bottom surface and that stud anchors be embedded in more resilient sole portions, and that no infringement existed under the doctrine of equivalents.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

Plaintiff William Ray Costello sued the City of Burlington and its police officers, claiming that officers violated his First Amendment rights by approaching him while he preached loudly on Church Street and issuing a warning under the city's noise ordinance. The case had previously been decided in the defendants' favor, but the Second Circuit remanded for additional evidence on the usual and customary noise levels in that location. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the case. The court reasoned that Costello's voice carried far beyond ordinary conversation and dominated the area, making the ordinance's application narrowly tailored to the city's interest in controlling unreasonable noise, and that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate clearly established law under precedents like Ward v. Rock Against Racism and Deegan v. City of Ithaca.

free speechreligious libertycriminal lawcivil rights

Dr. Camilla Kelly sued Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company and Unum Group after her disability benefit payments under an "own occupation" policy were discontinued in 2007, alleging she remained totally disabled by mental health conditions and seeking unpaid benefits plus damages on breach of contract and bad faith claims. The insurer moved for summary judgment, citing independent medical examinations and vocational analysis indicating clinical improvement that allowed a return to medical practice, while Kelly cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the contract claim. The court denied both summary judgment motions, concluding that genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether Kelly continued to meet the policy's definition of total disability. It also dismissed sua sponte the implied-covenant claim and denied as moot the insurer's motions to stay discovery and to strike factual statements.

business & regulatoryhealthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved plaintiff Elizabeth Russell's challenge to the denial of Medicare Part A coverage for skilled nursing home health services she received from June to December 2004, after the Secretary determined she was not confined to her home as required under the Medicare Act. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting Russell's motion to reverse the Secretary's decision, denying the Secretary's motion to affirm, and remanding the case for further administrative proceedings, including possible re-weighing of the evidence. The core reasoning focused on deficiencies in the ALJ's assessment of whether Russell qualified as homebound, including conflicting evidence regarding her ability to perform instrumental activities of daily living like shopping, her medical conditions such as a non-healing wound and fatigue, and inconsistencies in how the homebound standard was applied to the facts. The court found the administrative decision did not adequately address the record in light of the statutory criteria for coverage.

healthcare

The case Fortunati v. Campagne arose from the June 24, 2006 shooting death of Joseph Fortunati by Vermont State Police troopers after he threatened his family with a handgun while known to be mentally ill and armed. Plaintiffs, Fortunati's family members, sued the officers and supervisors in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force, along with related state claims. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. It held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, including the suspect's prior threats, possession of a weapon, erratic behavior, and history of resisting police, and any mistake by the officers was reasonable.

civil rightscriminal lawtorts & liability

In Naylor v. Rotech Healthcare, Inc., plaintiff Scott Naylor, a former Location Manager fired for unauthorized use of a company gas card, sued his employer for breach of implied contract by wrongful termination and for punitive damages. After discovery revealed an email in which a Rotech director told a client representative that Naylor was "stealing from the company," Naylor moved to amend his complaint to add claims for defamation based on that statement and for spoliation of evidence based on Rotech's failure to produce a prior warning email. The court granted the motion as to the defamation claim, finding it was not futile under Vermont law and that good cause existed for the late amendment, but denied the motion as to the spoliation claim. The court reasoned that Vermont does not recognize an independent tort for first-party spoliation of evidence, as such issues are properly addressed through discovery sanctions in the underlying lawsuit rather than as a separate cause of action.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

The case arose after plaintiff James Pietrangelo, dissatisfied with how a hot dog was prepared at the Pine Street Deli, reported the matter to health authorities and began picketing on the public sidewalk outside the deli while recording the activity. He alleged that a confrontational individual (John Doe) impeded him, police officers responded inadequately by failing to arrest or identify Doe, issued him a no-trespass notice regarding deli property, and thereby violated his state and federal constitutional rights along with committing various torts and conspiracy. The case was removed to federal court, where the district court addressed motions to remand, for injunctive relief, and for summary judgment. The court denied remand, granted summary judgment to the city defendants on the federal claims, and dismissed the related state constitutional claims, reasoning that the no-trespass notice merely informed Pietrangelo of property rights without imposing any penalty or restriction on public-space activity, that officers' responses did not violate clearly established rights, and that Pietrangelo failed to establish any constitutional deprivation or municipal liability.

free speechcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

Brown sued Castleton State College alleging racial and gender discrimination during his enrollment in the nursing program in 2003-2004 and in the college's handling of his 2006 grievance after he withdrew. The defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, primarily arguing that the claims were barred by statutes of limitations and lacked sufficient factual allegations. The court evaluated the motions by treating the complaint's facts as true, applying the four-year federal limitations period to the §1981 claim and the state's personal injury period to the Title IX claim, and assessing whether the grievance-related allegations plausibly showed discriminatory animus under the Twombly/Iqbal standard as informed by earlier case law like Yusuf and Mian. The opinion concludes that the nursing program incidents were time-barred while the grievance claims required additional pleading of intent to proceed.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved Tennessee Commerce Bank appealing a bankruptcy court order confirming debtor Robert Hutchins' Chapter 13 plan, which treated the bank's claim as unsecured after Hutchins borrowed money secured by a dump truck but did not perfect the lien under Vermont law by delivering the title. The district court reviewed the bankruptcy court's findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of law de novo, focusing on whether the plan was proposed in good faith under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3) and whether equitable subrogation or estoppel should apply to reclassify the claim as secured. The court affirmed the order, holding that the good faith determination was not clearly erroneous because both parties contributed to the unperfected status and there was no abuse of the bankruptcy code, and that equitable remedies were unavailable because the bank failed to take reasonable steps to perfect its interest, which would have disadvantaged other unsecured creditors. The decision rested on Vermont's statutory requirements for perfecting vehicle liens and the totality of circumstances in the pre-petition conduct.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved a Vermont correctional officer suing two healthcare providers contracted by the state for injuries from an inmate assault, alleging negligence in the inmate's mental health treatment and failure to warn of his dangerousness. The plaintiff invoked federal diversity jurisdiction, but one defendant, a Vermont professional corporation, moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motion and dismissed the claims against that defendant without prejudice. It reasoned that complete diversity is required under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the addition of a non-diverse defendant destroys jurisdiction, and supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(b) does not apply to claims against defendants joined under Rule 20.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves pharmaceutical data companies challenging Vermont's Prescription Confidentiality Law, which restricts the use of prescriber-identifiable prescription data for marketing purposes, on First Amendment grounds. The court had previously upheld the law as constitutional after a full review on the merits. In ruling on the plaintiffs' motion for an injunction pending appeal, the court denied the request, determining that the plaintiffs had not shown irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on appeal, while the public interest in protecting health and containing costs weighed against delaying enforcement.

free speechbusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

This case involves plaintiff Jennifer Gregory, a former American Airlines pilot, who sued her former employer and MetLife to recover long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed plan for her restless leg syndrome condition after her employment ended. The district court denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, including the plaintiff's request for a direct award of benefits and a ruling on plan participation. It also granted MetLife's motion to dismiss claims for fines under ERISA and state-law bad faith, and sustained the plaintiff's objection to evidence outside the administrative record. The court remanded the matter to the plan administrator's Pension Benefits Administration Committee for a second-level appeal to determine the plaintiff's eligibility for benefits, specifically whether she was a plan participant when her disability began. The core reasoning focused on the need for further administrative review of the claim under the self-funded LTD plan's procedures rather than a court determination on the merits.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case involved constitutional challenges by data mining companies and pharmaceutical manufacturers to three sections of a Vermont law (Act 80, as amended by Act 89) regulating the use of prescriber-identifiable data from prescription records. Section 17 barred the sale or use of such data for marketing prescription drugs without prescriber consent; section 20 established a state-funded evidence-based education program for prescribers financed by manufacturer fees; and section 21 created a state consumer fraud cause of action for ads violating federal law. The court denied the plaintiffs' motions for declaratory and injunctive relief and summary judgment, holding that the provisions survived First Amendment, preemption, and other constitutional challenges. It reasoned that the restrictions were not preempted by federal law, did not violate free speech protections given the state's interests in public health and cost containment, and that any potential issues with the education program or extraterritorial application did not warrant facial invalidation.

free speechbusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Ricky Wilkinson, who was convicted in Vermont state court of first-degree aggravated domestic assault based in part on out-of-court statements by his stepson Tom that were admitted as excited utterances. Wilkinson was barred from calling Tom as a witness due to a state law disqualifying convicted perjurers from testifying, which the Vermont Supreme Court upheld on direct appeal. The federal district court, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation after de novo review, granted the petition, finding that the admission of the statements without an opportunity for cross-examination violated Wilkinson's rights under the Confrontation Clause and to present a defense, and that the error was not harmless given the statements' importance and the weakness of the prosecution's case. The court ordered Wilkinson released unless the state retries him within 90 days.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves a Vermont inmate who sued prison officials claiming that his placement in an outdoor cage in cold weather while incarcerated in Oklahoma violated his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing claims against two Vermont Department of Corrections defendants due to lack of personal involvement in the alleged conduct. The court transferred the remaining claims to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, finding that venue was improper in Vermont because the events occurred in Oklahoma and transfer served the interests of justice under 28 U.S.C. § 1406.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case involved a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by Pathfinders Motorcycle Club and its vice president against members of the Windham County Sheriff’s Department. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants unlawfully interfered with their planned August 8, 2004 recreational motorcycle event on Class 4 public roads and trails in Jamaica, Vermont, by threatening arrests, ticketing, towing, and vehicle auctions. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing there were no genuine issues of material fact and that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The court denied the motion, finding unresolved factual disputes over the presence of trophies at the event, the information provided to the State’s Attorney, the advice given by that official, and whether the officers’ actions beyond issuing a citation to the promoter were objectively reasonable.

civil rightsprocedure

This diversity jurisdiction case involves plaintiff R.L. Vallee, Inc., as assignee of an insured, suing its pollution liability insurer for denying coverage and a defense in a state court action over petroleum contamination from underground and above-ground storage tanks at a former gas station. The insurer moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the claims were outside policy terms and that a breach of contract could not support a Vermont Consumer Fraud Act claim. The district court, after de novo review, adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting dismissal of the consumer fraud count because a mere coverage dispute does not constitute consumer fraud under Vermont precedent, while denying dismissal of the remaining breach of contract and related claims.

business & regulatoryenvironmentprocedure

The case is a medical malpractice suit brought by William Neuenswander against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that doctors at a VA medical center failed to properly treat his chronic skin disease, Hidradenitis Suppurativa, over an extended period of inpatient care. The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending that the plaintiff's administrative claim did not provide sufficient notice of the claim. The court denied the motion, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation after reviewing the administrative filing and medical history. It held that the claim adequately notified the VA of the nature of the malpractice allegations and related treatment issues, satisfying the FTCA's presentment requirements under applicable lenient standards.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

The case involves homeowners who experienced moisture damage in their Vermont vacation home after installing open-cell foam insulation manufactured by Icynene and installed by a dealer. The plaintiffs sued for negligence, consumer fraud, and breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose under the UCC and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The court granted summary judgment to the manufacturer on the negligence, consumer fraud, and fitness warranty claims, but denied it on the merchantability claim, while granting in part the plaintiffs' motion by recognizing them as consumers but denying other partial summary judgment requests. The reasoning centered on whether the insulation was fit for ordinary purposes, the adequacy of warnings about vapor barriers in cold climates, the admissibility of expert testimony, and the applicability of consumer protection laws to the transaction.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability