This case involved William Brady's claim against Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield for payment of his wife's medical expenses from double bypass surgery under a health insurance policy, after the insurer initially denied coverage by questioning the policy's existence and later citing a pre-existing condition. The court noted that the parties had stipulated to payment of the benefits totaling over $27,000. It held that the policy was not part of an ERISA plan, so Louisiana state insurance law applied instead, authorizing penalties equal to the benefits amount plus attorney's fees due to the insurer's delays and improper handling of the claim. The court awarded $27,331.27 in penalties and $10,000 in attorney's fees.
The case involved homeowners suing their insurer, State Farm, to recover under a homeowner’s policy for losses from a house fire, while the insurer asserted arson as a defense and counterclaimed for payments made to the mortgagee and insureds. The court found that the fire was intentionally set using gasoline as an accelerant, that the husband had both motive due to financial troubles including inability to cover debts and expenses and opportunity given his proximity and lack of alibi, and thus the plaintiffs were responsible for the loss. Consequently, the policy was void under its terms barring recovery by either spouse, and State Farm prevailed on its counterclaim for reimbursement of amounts paid. The reasoning relied on circumstantial evidence meeting the preponderance standard under Louisiana law, including expert testimony on the fire's origin, without adopting an innocent coinsured exception.
The case concerned a challenge by chemical manufacturers and trade associations to the Department of Health and Human Services' procedures and criteria for classifying substances as known or reasonably anticipated carcinogens in the Annual Report on Carcinogens under 42 U.S.C. § 241(b)(4), and the application of those criteria to chemicals including paradichlorobenzene. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the criteria were arbitrary, capricious, and inconsistent with the Public Health Service Act because they relied on animal studies without adequate consideration of human evidence. The court addressed pending motions for a preliminary injunction and dismissal, with jurisdiction based on federal question and other statutes, while reviewing legislative history that endorsed the use of animal bioassay data for identifying presumptive human carcinogens.
This case is a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Eltech Systems Corp. and OxyTech Systems Inc. against PPG Industries, Inc., alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 4,489,025 and 4,410,411 related to diaphragms for chlor-alkali electrolytic cells used in producing chlorine and sodium hydroxide. The court had jurisdiction under federal patent laws, and the validity of the patents was not contested. The court concluded that PPG did not infringe the patents because its diaphragm manufacturing process, involving the heating of Halar polymer with asbestos fibers, did not satisfy the specific requirements of the patent claims for binding the fibers to achieve dimensional stability under operating conditions. The reasoning included deficiencies in the plaintiffs' experimental evidence and greater credibility given to the defendant's expert testimony.
This case involved a Louisiana attachment proceeding in which plaintiff John N. John, Jr., Inc. sought to recover unpaid freight charges by seizing oil pitch stored at the Eastlake Oil Terminal in the name of defendant Brahma Petroleum Corporation. Intervenor Torque Petroleum Products, Inc. claimed it had purchased the products days earlier and moved to dissolve the writ, also seeking damages for wrongful attachment. The court upheld the constitutionality of the Louisiana nonresident attachment statute under due process precedents such as Mitchell v. W.T. Grant Co. and North Georgia Finishing, found quasi-in-rem jurisdiction proper because the attached property was the subject of the underlying claim, and ruled that ownership had not transferred to Torque against third parties because no delivery or notice had been given to the terminal holder. Accordingly, the attachment was valid, Torque’s claim was dismissed, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff in the amount of the debt plus interest, to be satisfied from the proceeds of the attached property.
This case involved an appeal by Continental Illinois National Bank, as administrator for the FDIC and a major creditor, challenging fee awards to trustee Charles N. Wooten and his law firm in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of Evangeline Refining Co. (later converted to Chapter 7), along with Wooten's cross-appeal seeking additional compensation. The district court first recalled an invalid referral of the appeal to a magistrate, then reviewed the interim and final fee applications on the merits, identifying problems such as improper 1% charges on a $2.85 million letter of credit and over $5 million in gas transactions, overstated daily hours, and inconsistent hourly rates across cases. Applying the twelve factors for attorney fee awards and noting the bankruptcy court's wide discretion, the court substantially reduced compensation and ordered Wooten to repay $50,000 and his firm $78,819.25 from prior interim awards while denying the final applications.