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

Dismissal based on statute of limitations affirmed; court relied on judicial notice of court file

Day on Torts

Where the trial court took judicial notice of items from the court case underlying a tort action for invasion of privacy, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, it did not convert the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment and dismissal of the claims based on the statute of limitations was affirmed.

Statute 59
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

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.

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. §

Tort 59
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

Defaulting parties have limited new trial motion rights; statute regarding trafficking of stolen goods read broadly

At the Lectern

.” The court added that if the remedies it approves “are problematic as a matter of policy, the Legislature can be expected to amend the statute accordingly.”

Statute 49
article thumbnail

No reasonable reliance on alleged misrepresentation where plaintiff could have read the contract which contradicted defendant’s statement.

Day on Torts

8, 2022), plaintiff’s husband and step-son owned a commercial electrical contracting business. When the business was unable to finish the work project, the company for whom the work was to be done enforced its contract with plaintiff and her husband and took possession of various properties owned personally by plaintiff and her husband.