article thumbnail

Justices order vigorous enforcement of choice-of-law clauses in maritime insurance contracts

SCOTUSBlog

The argument revealed a bench deeply skeptical of the uncertainty maritime insurance contracts would face under a lower-court decision limiting the enforcement of choice-of-law clauses in those contracts. The contract, like most American marine insurance contracts, called for the application of New York law.

article thumbnail

Government immunity narrowed for non-tort claims

At the Lectern

Superior Court , the Supreme Court today holds that medical providers can assert a statutory claim against publicly operated health care service plans, just as they can sue privately operated plans, to get reimbursement for emergency services provided to plan enrollees. In County of Santa Clara v. ” (Link added.)

Tort 45
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Supreme Court of Canada to Hear Jurisdiction Appeal

Conflict of Laws

The Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to appeal in Sinclair v Venezia Turismo. In light of the test for obtaining leave and the relatively low number of cases in which leave is granted, this offers at least some suggestion that the top court is interested in considering the legal issues raised in the case.

Tort 57
article thumbnail

Claim regarding retirement benefit calculation was not a tort claim.

Day on Torts

Although plaintiff labeled his complaint as a tort claim, the gravamen of the complaint was a dispute over “the amount, time and manner of payment of plaintiff’s pension plan benefits.” 4-5-322, which grants exclusive jurisdiction of such reviews to the Chancery Court. The Court also looked at Tenn. Code Ann. § Code Ann. §

Tort 59
article thumbnail

Supreme Court limits homeowners’ ability to sue their lenders in tort

At the Lectern

Balancing “the interests of homeowners in default against those seeking affordable home loans,” the Supreme Court in Sheen v. ” The court settles a conflict in Court of Appeal case law and notes a similar divide in federal district court rulings.

Tort 49
article thumbnail

Vegetation management contractor had no duty to remove tree located beyond scope of contract with electrical service.

Day on Torts

Defendant Wolf Tree (Wolf) filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that it owed no duty to plaintiffs because “its contract with SCES explicitly stated that it was not to prune service drops,” because “it had no statutory or common law duty,” and because “Plaintiffs could show no evidence of a negligent or intentional trespass or nuisance.”

article thumbnail

State responsible for allegedly dangerous condition on state-owned highway despite contracting maintenance out to city.

Day on Torts

Although the State had contracted with a municipality for the maintenance of a state-owned highway, the State still bore “the ultimate responsibility for inspecting and maintaining [the highway],” and “the contract did not absolve the State of potential liability for failing to do so.” The Court rejected this argument.