﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="../StyleSheet/rss.xsl"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Litigation Resource Community News</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/litigationresourcecenter</link><description>Litigation Resource Community, LexisNexis</description><copyright>http://www.lexisnexis.com/terms/copyright.aspx</copyright><atom:link href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/litigationresourcecenter/Rss.aspx?id=287" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Hawaii Federal Judge Remands Discovery Dispute To Magistrate Judge</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/hawaii-federal-judge-remands-discovery-dispute-to-magistrate-judge.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/hawaii-federal-judge-remands-discovery-dispute-to-magistrate-judge.aspx</guid><description>HONOLULU - A Hawaii federal judge on May 16 remanded a discovery dispute in an arsenic damage coverage case to a magistrate judge to determine whether good cause exists to extend a discovery deadline to allow an insurer to designate an expert witness (Association of Apartment Owners of Imperial Plaza v. Fireman&amp;#39;s Fund Insurance Co., No. 11-00758, D. Hawaii; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69933).
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>anonymous@localhost.com (Liz Barrett)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 16:29:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Viacom Wins Dismissal Of Contributory, Vicarious Trademark Allegations</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/viacom-wins-dismissal-of-contributory-vicarious-trademark-allegations.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/viacom-wins-dismissal-of-contributory-vicarious-trademark-allegations.aspx</guid><description>LOS ANGELES - Claims by Gibson Guitar Corp. that Viacom International Inc. committed contributory and vicarious infringement of Gibson&amp;#39;s &amp;quot;Flying V&amp;quot; trademark were dismissed with prejudice May 17 by a California federal judge (Gibson Guitar Corporation v. Viacom International Inc. and John Hornby Skewes &amp;amp; Co. Ltd., No. 12-10870, C.D. Calif.).
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>anonymous@localhost.com (Liz Barrett)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 16:29:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Kansas Federal Judge Grants Insurer's Motion To Amend Answer</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/kansas-federal-judge-grants-insurer-s-motion-to-amend-answer.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/kansas-federal-judge-grants-insurer-s-motion-to-amend-answer.aspx</guid><description>TOPEKA, Kan. - A Kansas federal judge on May 16 permitted an insurer to amend its answer to add an affirmative defense because the insureds will not be prejudiced by the amendment and because the insurer showed good cause for the delay in seeking the amendment (Jeff Coder, et al. v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, No. 12-2231, D. Kan.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69882).
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>anonymous@localhost.com (Liz Barrett)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 16:29:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>3rd Circuit:  Debtors Should Have Disclosed Claims In Bankruptcy Proceeding</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/3rd-circuit-debtors-should-have-disclosed-claims-in-bankruptcy-proceeding.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/3rd-circuit-debtors-should-have-disclosed-claims-in-bankruptcy-proceeding.aspx</guid><description>PHILADELPHIA - A panel of the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 17 affirmed a lower court&amp;#39;s ruling that a debtor couple were responsible for inconsistencies in their bankruptcy petition as well as the nondisclosure of claims that should have been included in their bankruptcy schedules (J.H. Group LLC d/b/a Ocean Rolling Chairs, et al. v. Royal Rolling Chairs LLC, No. 12-3476, Chapter 11, 3rd Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9898).
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>anonymous@localhost.com (Liz Barrett)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 16:29:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Alabama High Court Reverses, Remands After Insurer Moves For Rehearing</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/alabama-high-court-reverses-remands-after-insurer-moves-for-rehearing.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/alabama-high-court-reverses-remands-after-insurer-moves-for-rehearing.aspx</guid><description>MONTGOMERY, Ala. - The Alabama Supreme Court on May 17 withdrew a Jan. 11 opinion against a commercial general liability insurer, finding that a lower court erred in ruling that the insurer was liable for an underlying judgment entered against two officers of a national fraternity insured&amp;#39;s local chapter (Admiral Insurance Company v. Ryan Price-Williams, No. 1110993, Ala. Sup.; 2013 Ala. LEXIS 49).
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>anonymous@localhost.com (Liz Barrett)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 16:29:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Judge Finds Title Insurance Company Has Authority To Execute Default Notice</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/judge-finds-title-insurance-company-has-authority-to-execute-default-notice.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/judge-finds-title-insurance-company-has-authority-to-execute-default-notice.aspx</guid><description>RENO, Nev. - A federal judge in Nevada on May 17 awarded summary judgment to defendants in a quiet title suit after finding that ReconTrust Company N.A. and First American Title Insurance Co. sufficiently showed that they had an agreement wherein First American could send notices of default to borrowers who were behind on their mortgages (Andrew L. Jordan v. Plaza Home Mortgage Inc., et al., No. 11-cv-348-RCJ-WGC, D. Nev.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70500).
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>anonymous@localhost.com (Liz Barrett)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 16:29:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>9th Circuit Reverses Attorney Fee Award In HP Printer Class Settlement</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/9th-circuit-reverses-attorney-fee-award-in-hp-printer-class-settlement.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/9th-circuit-reverses-attorney-fee-award-in-hp-printer-class-settlement.aspx</guid><description>SAN FRANCISCO - A split Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on May 15 reversed final approval of a class action settlement between Hewlett-Packard Co. (HP) and a nationwide class of consumers who purchased certain HP inkjet printers, finding that the attorney fee award to class counsel violated the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) (In re:  HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, No. 11-16097, 9th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9744).
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>anonymous@localhost.com (Liz Barrett)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 16:29:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Papa John's Agrees To Settle Spam Texts Class Action Suit</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/papa-john-s-agrees-to-settle-spam-texts-class-action-suit.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/papa-john-s-agrees-to-settle-spam-texts-class-action-suit.aspx</guid><description>SEATTLE - A class of consumers who accused a pizza chain and a marketing company of sending spam advertisements via text on May 17 moved for the approval of a settlement the defendants claim has a potential value of $16,585,000, of which $13,860,000 is in the form of class members&amp;#39; merchandise certificates and class payments (Maria Agne, et al. v. Papa John&amp;#39;s International, Inc., et al., No. 10-1139, W.D. Wash.).
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>anonymous@localhost.com (Liz Barrett)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 16:29:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Settlement Between Farmers, Milk Marketers Receives Final Approval</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/settlement-between-farmers-milk-marketers-receives-final-approval.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/settlement-between-farmers-milk-marketers-receives-final-approval.aspx</guid><description>GREENEVILLE, Tenn. - A $158.6 million class action settlement with Dairy Farmers of America Inc. and the other remaining defendants on claims that the defendants engaged in anti-competitive actions related to raw Grade A milk processed in the Southeast received final approval by a federal judge in Tennessee on May 17 (In re:  Southeastern Milk Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 2:08-MD-1000, E.D. Tenn. $(Sweetwater Valley Farm, Inc., et al. v. Dean Foods, et al., No. 2:07-CV-208, E.D. Tenn.$); 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70163; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70167).
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>anonymous@localhost.com (Liz Barrett)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 16:29:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Louisiana Panel Affirms Ruling Granting Insurer's Exception Of Prescription</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/louisiana-panel-affirms-ruling-granting-insurer-s-exception-of-prescription.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/louisiana-panel-affirms-ruling-granting-insurer-s-exception-of-prescription.aspx</guid><description>GRETNA, La. - A Louisiana appeals panel on May 16 affirmed a lower court&amp;#39;s judgment granting an insurer&amp;#39;s exception of prescription in a Hurricane Katrina coverage dispute and remanded to allow the insureds the opportunity to amend and supplement their petition within 21 days (Karen Baker, et al. v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp., No. 12-CA-480, La. App., 5th Cir.; 2013 La. App. LEXIS 951).
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>anonymous@localhost.com (Liz Barrett)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 16:29:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>U.S. Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Whistle-Blower Appeal</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/u-s-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-whistle-blower-appeal.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/u-s-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-whistle-blower-appeal.aspx</guid><description>WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on May 20 agreed to hear the appeal of a First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that the whistle-blower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act does not extend its coverage to protect contractors and subcontractors working for private companies employed by public companies (Jackie Hosang Lawson, et al. v. FMR LLC, et al., No. 12-3, U.S. Sup.; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 3889).
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>anonymous@localhost.com (Liz Barrett)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 16:29:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>U.S. Supreme Court Refuses To Review Dismissal Of Village's Environmental Suit</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/u-s-supreme-court-refuses-to-review-dismissal-of-village-s-environmental-suit.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/u-s-supreme-court-refuses-to-review-dismissal-of-village-s-environmental-suit.aspx</guid><description>WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on May 20 denied an Alaska village&amp;#39;s petition for review of a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision affirming the dismissal of its suit claiming that emissions from a number of power companies have resulted in erosion that threatens its existence (Native Village of Kivalina, et al. v. ExxonMobil Corporation, et al., No. 12-1072, U.S. Sup.).&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>anonymous@localhost.com (Liz Barrett)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 16:29:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Pittsburgh Corning's Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan Confirmed</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/pittsburgh-corning-s-chapter-11-reorganization-plan-confirmed.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/pittsburgh-corning-s-chapter-11-reorganization-plan-confirmed.aspx</guid><description>PITTSBURGH - Thirteen years after seeking bankruptcy protection from hundreds of thousands of asbestos personal injury claims, building products manufacturer Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (PCC) on May 16 received confirmation from a Pennsylvania federal bankruptcy judge for a plan of reorganization that establishes a more than $2 billion trust to pay those claims and future asbestos demands (In re:  Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, No. 00-22876, W.D. Pa. Bkcy.; 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 2030).
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>anonymous@localhost.com (Liz Barrett)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 16:29:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Judge:  Expiration Of Redemption Period Bars Man's Foreclosure Suit</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/judge-expiration-of-redemption-period-bars-man-s-foreclosure-suit.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/judge-expiration-of-redemption-period-bars-man-s-foreclosure-suit.aspx</guid><description>ANN ARBOR, Mich. - A federal judge in Michigan on May 17 awarded summary judgment to PNC Bank N.A. and the Federal National Home Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), after finding that a man&amp;#39;s lawsuit challenging the foreclosure on his home was barred because it was filed after the redemption period that followed the sheriff&amp;#39;s sale of the property (Danny Love v. PNC Bank, N.A., et al., No. 12-12630, E.D. Mich.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70030).
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>anonymous@localhost.com (Liz Barrett)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 14:20:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Louisiana Appeals Panel:  Defendants Not Responsible For Water-Damaged Building</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/louisiana-appeals-panel-defendants-not-responsible-for-water-damaged-building.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/louisiana-appeals-panel-defendants-not-responsible-for-water-damaged-building.aspx</guid><description>NEW ORLEANS - The Fourth Circuit Louisiana Court of Appeal on May 15 affirmed decisions for the defendants in a defective roofing action, agreeing that a roofing contractor did not breach its warranty or commit any negligence that caused water damage to a commercial building (Loconte Partners LLC v. Montgomery and Associates Inc., et al., No. 2012-CA-0691, La. App., 4th Cir.; 2013 La. App. LEXIS 983).
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>anonymous@localhost.com (Liz Barrett)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 14:20:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>'Girls Gone Wild' Entities:  Trustee Is 'Frankly Absurd' Regarding Marketing Group</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/girls-gone-wild-entities-trustee-is-frankly-absurd-regarding-marketing-group.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/girls-gone-wild-entities-trustee-is-frankly-absurd-regarding-marketing-group.aspx</guid><description>LOS ANGELES - Three of the subsidiary parties associated with bankrupt GGW Brands LLC, the parent company of adult video maker &amp;quot;Girls Gone Wild,&amp;quot; on May 20 filed an additional brief opposing the trustee&amp;#39;s motion seeking authority to file a Chapter 11 petition on behalf of GGW Marketing LLC, arguing that the trustee&amp;#39;s position is &amp;quot;frankly absurd&amp;quot; (In Re:  GGW Brands LLC, No. 13-15130, Chapter 11, C.D. Calif. Bkcy.).
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>anonymous@localhost.com (Liz Barrett)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 14:20:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>MF Global Customers Say They Are Entitled To Recovery Of More Than $300M In Funds</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/mf-global-customers-say-they-are-entitled-to-recovery-of-more-than-300m-in-funds.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/mf-global-customers-say-they-are-entitled-to-recovery-of-more-than-300m-in-funds.aspx</guid><description>NEW YORK - Commodities customers who invested money with MF Global Inc., an affiliate of bankrupt MF Global Holdings Ltd. (MFGH), on May 17 filed a brief in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, contending that their claim to more than $300 million in funds is &amp;quot;indisputably&amp;quot; valid (In Re:  MF Global Holdings Ltd., No. 11-15059, Chapter 11, S.D. N.Y. Bkcy.).
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>anonymous@localhost.com (Liz Barrett)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 14:20:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Bankrupt Oil Company GMX Seeks Bankruptcy Court's OK For $338M Asset Sale</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/bankrupt-oil-company-gmx-seeks-bankruptcy-court-s-ok-for-338m-asset-sale.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/bankrupt-oil-company-gmx-seeks-bankruptcy-court-s-ok-for-338m-asset-sale.aspx</guid><description>OKLAHOMA CITY - Bankrupt oil and natural gas exploration company GMX Resources Inc. on May 16 moved in bankruptcy court for approval of its plan to sell all of its assets to a stalking horse bidder for $338 million (In Re:  GMX Resources Inc., No. 13-11456, Chapter 11, W.D. Okla. Bkcy.).
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>anonymous@localhost.com (Liz Barrett)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 14:20:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>FTC Entitled To TRO In Merger Case, Georgia Federal Judge Rules</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/ftc-entitled-to-tro-in-merger-case-georgia-federal-judge-rules.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/ftc-entitled-to-tro-in-merger-case-georgia-federal-judge-rules.aspx</guid><description>ALBANY, Ga. - A federal judge in Georgia on May 15 granted the Federal Trade Commission&amp;#39;s motion to temporarily enjoin Phoebe Putney Health System Inc. from taking any further steps to consolidate Georgia hospitals and from making any price changes to existing contracts following the U.S. Supreme Court&amp;#39;s recent ruling that the state-action doctrine does not immunize the merger from antitrust scrutiny (Federal Trade Commission, et al. v. Phoebe Putney Health System Inc., et al., No. 1:11-cv-58, M.D. Ga.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68658).
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>anonymous@localhost.com (Liz Barrett)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 14:20:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Insurer Not Required To Pay More Than 12 Months Of Living Expenses, Panel Says</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/insurer-not-required-to-pay-more-than-12-months-of-living-expenses-panel-says.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/insurer-not-required-to-pay-more-than-12-months-of-living-expenses-panel-says.aspx</guid><description>CINCINNATI - An insurer is not required to pay for more than 12 months of additional living expenses incurred by insureds who vacated their home as a result of the discovery of asbestos in their home&amp;#39;s walls because the policy clearly limits the additional living expenses to 12 months, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal said May 15 (Reginald Hayes, et al. v. Liberty Insurance Corp., No. 12-1864, 6th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9865).
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>anonymous@localhost.com (Liz Barrett)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 14:20:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>6th Circuit Panel Affirms Summary Judgment In Unintended Acceleration Case</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/6th-circuit-panel-affirms-summary-judgment-in-unintended-acceleration-case.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/6th-circuit-panel-affirms-summary-judgment-in-unintended-acceleration-case.aspx</guid><description>CINCINNATI - The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 16 upheld summary judgment for an automobile manufacturer named as the defendant in a personal injury action, agreeing that the plaintiffs failed to show that a dangerous manufacturing flaw existed that allowed the defendant&amp;#39;s sport utility vehicle to unintentionally accelerate (Linda Buck, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., No. 12-3908, 6th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9998).
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>anonymous@localhost.com (Liz Barrett)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 14:20:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Insurer Sought To Resolve Liens, Subrogation In Good Faith, 10th Circuit Finds</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/insurer-sought-to-resolve-liens-subrogation-in-good-faith-10th-circuit-finds.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/insurer-sought-to-resolve-liens-subrogation-in-good-faith-10th-circuit-finds.aspx</guid><description>DENVER - The evidence shows that an auto insurer properly attempted to settle all matters related to claims against its insured&amp;#39;s estate, a 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled May 16, affirming a lower court&amp;#39;s finding of no bad faith on the insurer&amp;#39;s part (Tara Berendes v. GEICO Casualty Co., No. 12-4136, 10th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9806).
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>anonymous@localhost.com (Liz Barrett)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 14:20:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Federal Judge Awards Damages To Plaintiffs In Ponzi Scheme Suit</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/federal-judge-awards-damages-to-plaintiffs-in-ponzi-scheme-suit.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/federal-judge-awards-damages-to-plaintiffs-in-ponzi-scheme-suit.aspx</guid><description>GREENBELT, Md. - Following a bench trial on damages, a federal judge in Maryland on May 16 awarded nearly $700,000 to plaintiffs who alleged a Ponzi scheme arising from mortgage financing (Willie Fields, et al. v. Forrest Walpole, et al., No. 11-1000, D. Md.; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142982).
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>anonymous@localhost.com (Liz Barrett)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 14:20:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Supreme Court Grants Certiorari In Dispute Over Cardiac Device Patents</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/supreme-court-grants-certiorari-in-dispute-over-cardiac-device-patents.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/supreme-court-grants-certiorari-in-dispute-over-cardiac-device-patents.aspx</guid><description>WASHINGTON, D.C. - The question of whether a patent licensee bears the burden of proving that its products do not infringe in a declaratory judgment action filed pursuant to MedImmune Inc. v. Genentech Inc. (549 U.S. 118, 137 $(2007$)) will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which on May 20 granted certiorari in a dispute over cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices (Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. et al., No. 12-1128, U.S. Sup.).
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>anonymous@localhost.com (Liz Barrett)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 14:20:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>U.S. Supreme Court OKs Attorney Fees In Untimely, Good Faith Vaccine Cases</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/u-s-supreme-court-oks-attorney-fees-in-untimely-good-faith-vaccine-cases.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LITIGATIONRESOURCECENTER/blogs/mealeys/archive/2013/05/20/u-s-supreme-court-oks-attorney-fees-in-untimely-good-faith-vaccine-cases.aspx</guid><description>WASHINGTON, D.C. - A federal vaccine compensation petitioner who filed an untimely claim may qualify for attorney fees if her claim was filed in good faith and there was a reasonable basis for it, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled May 20 (Kathleen Sebelius, et al. v. Melissa Cloer, No. 12-236, U.S. Sup.).
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>anonymous@localhost.com (Liz Barrett)</author><pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 14:20:00 -0400</pubDate></item></channel></rss>