The case involves a former special education teacher who sued the Henrico County School Board and several officials, alleging retaliation including threats, demotion, suspension, and contract non-renewal after she reported student abuse, neglect, and discriminatory practices against African-American and economically disadvantaged students. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Count One proceeds only against the school board, while Count Nine proceeds in part for abuse of process claims accruing on or after January 4, 2009; the remaining counts are dismissed on grounds including qualified immunity, the statute of limitations, lack of jurisdiction or standing, and failure to state a claim. The reasoning relies on application of federal pleading standards, Virginia limitations law, and doctrines barring certain claims against individual defendants or for lack of concrete injury.
This case concerns a dispute between SunTrust Mortgage and United Guaranty Residential Insurance over the insurer's denial of coverage claims on 1,305 loans insured under a master policy. After granting summary judgment to SunTrust on liability, finding that United Guaranty had materially breached the policy, the court held a bench trial on damages for Count I. The parties had stipulated that covered claims totaled $34,152,634 as of May 31, 2011, with prejudgment interest through July 18, 2011, at $5,794,420 and a daily rate thereafter. The court awarded SunTrust the full stipulated damages plus interest, applying Virginia law that measures damages for breach of an obligation to pay a liquidated sum as the principal amount due together with interest, and rejecting United Guaranty's offset argument based on SunTrust's avoided future premiums.
This case concerned SunTrust Mortgage's affirmative defense to United Guaranty's counterclaim for a declaratory judgment requiring SunTrust to continue paying annual renewal premiums on mortgage insurance policies after the maximum cumulative liability limit had been reached for loan pools. The court had initially granted summary judgment to United Guaranty but later vacated it to address SunTrust's claim that United Guaranty committed a first material breach by denying claims on IOF Combo 100 Loans and improperly collecting premiums on performing loans. After a bench trial limited to evidence on the defense, the court held that SunTrust met its burden, entering judgment for SunTrust on the counterclaim count. The core reasoning was that United Guaranty's breaches of the insurance policy (including one already established in related litigation) were material and precluded enforcement of SunTrust's ongoing premium obligations.
This case involves DuPont's lawsuit against Kolon Industries alleging trade secret misappropriation and related business torts concerning Kevlar aramid fiber technology. The opinion addresses DuPont's motion for sanctions based on claims that Kolon employees deleted relevant electronic evidence shortly after the complaint was filed and then concealed the deletions. The court granted the motion, concluding that the record established deliberate spoliation by key Kolon personnel, supported by screenshots of deletion commands, evasive deposition testimony, low document production volumes, and forensic examinations of computer systems.
This case concerns a breach of contract claim by SunTrust Mortgage against AIG United Guaranty regarding denial of insurance coverage on IOF Combo 100 loans under a Master Policy and related flow plans from 2004 and 2005. SunTrust moved for summary judgment on Count I, asserting that the loans were covered and that United Guaranty's denials based on alleged underwriting exclusions were improper. The court granted the motion, entering partial summary judgment for SunTrust on liability. It reasoned that United Guaranty could not rely on parol evidence such as guideline matrices to establish an exclusion under Section 4.14 of the policy, that the policy language was ambiguous as to the source of underwriting guidelines, and that the material misrepresentation affirmative defense failed as a matter of law under Virginia insurance rules.
This case involves a dispute between SunTrust Mortgage and United Guaranty over an insurance policy covering certain mortgage loans, specifically whether United Guaranty breached the contract by denying claims on IOF Combo 100 loans that were not underwritten using Desktop Underwriting. SunTrust filed a motion in limine to bar United Guaranty from introducing parol evidence to interpret or alter the policy terms. The court granted the motion, holding that the Master Policy and Flow Plans contain unambiguous language defining the applicable underwriting guidelines as SunTrust's own guidelines, which cannot be contradicted by extrinsic evidence under Virginia's parol evidence rule. The decision rests on the principle that clear contractual provisions control and that the insurer, as drafter, cannot rely on outside communications to exclude coverage when the written terms specify otherwise.