Remove Contract Remove Government Remove Statute Remove Tort
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

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.

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

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.” Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Code Ann. § internal citations omitted).

Tort 59
article thumbnail

Court endorses private Section 1983 enforcement of spending clause enactments

SCOTUSBlog

Gorgi Talevski’s family brought a Section 1983 action against Valparaiso Care and Rehabilitation, a government nursing facility owned by Health and Hospital Corp. Jackson explained that two well-established principles prompted the court to reject HHC’s invitation to reimagine the statute and precedent.

Statute 99
article thumbnail

Australia’s statutist orthodoxy: High Court confirms the extraterritorial scope of the Australian Consumer Law in the Ruby Princess COVID-cruise case

Conflict of Laws

She asserted claims in tort and under the Australian Consumer Law ( ACL ) in schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) ( CCA ) against companies behind the ship: Carnival plc and its subsidiary, Princess Cruise Lines Ltd (together, Princess ). The ship is registered in Bermuda.

article thumbnail

Choice of law rules and statutory interpretation in the Ruby Princess Case in Australia

Conflict of Laws

The contracts contain an exclusive foreign jurisdiction clause nominating a non-Australian jurisdiction. Many passengers contracted COVID-19; some died. Statute has left little of the common law untouched. Background The Ruby Princess’ passengers contracted on different sets of terms and conditions (US, UK and AU).

Laws 58
article thumbnail

Proper analysis for petition to dismiss under Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA).

Day on Torts

The counterclaim asserted claims for breach of contract, libel and slander based on statements allegedly made online and to third parties by plaintiffs about defendant. Further, the trial court should consider any arguments regarding timeliness of both the petition to dismiss and the response thereto under the statute on remand.