RALEIGH, N.C. - Two individuals' last asbestos exposure came before the state created an association ensuring that self-insured employers meet obligations, a North Carolina appeals court held Oct. 6 in affirming denial of the claims (Dorothy Jane Ketchie and Clegg Lee Joines v. Fieldcrest Cannon Inc., insolvent self-insured employer, N.C. Self-Insurance Security Association, No. COA15-140, N.C. App.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 5 declined review of an 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that the discretionary function and misrepresentation exceptions of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) barred an investor suit against the U.S. government as a jurisdictional matter (Carlos Zelaya, et al. v. United States of America, No. 15-14, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 5 declined review of a 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in a securities class action lawsuit challenging the materiality pleading standard for stating claims under federal securities law (United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 880 Pension Fund v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., et al., No. 14-1233, U.S. Sup.).
CHICAGO - Because a number of medical providers alleging that an insurer wrongfully reduced payments on health claims are not beneficiaries to an insurance contract, they are not entitled to allege claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said Oct. 1 in reversing a district court's ruling in favor of the medical providers (Pennsylvania Chiropractic Association et al. v. Independence Hospital Indemnity Plan Inc., Nos. 14-2322, 14-3174 & 15-1274, 7th Cir.; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17269).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 5 denied certiorari in a disability claimant's suit alleging that the disability insurer wrongfully terminated her benefits under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (Rachael Cook v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 14-1449, U.S. Sup.).
NEW YORK - Dismissal of a first amended complaint in a securities class action lawsuit is proper because the lead plaintiff failed to properly plead materiality in making its federal securities law claims, a federal judge in New York ruled Sept. 29 (In re Ply Gem Holdings Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 14-3577, S.D. N.Y.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131203).
PHOENIX - Having excluded an expert from testifying that chafing was caused by a defect in the way in which a battery cable was secured in a car that caused a fire to a home, an Arizona federal magistrate judge granted summary judgment on Sept. 29 to BMW of North America LLC on a negligence claim (Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co., et al. v. BMW of North America LLC, et al., No. 13-01228, D. Ariz.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131218).
NEW YORK - A federal magistrate judge in New York on Sept. 29 ordered defendants in a securities class action lawsuit to produce a privilege log containing certain information sought by the named plaintiff in the action showing why it is covered by work product privilege (In re Symbol Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 05-3923, E.D. N.Y.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131478).
MONTGOMERY, Ala. - An Alabama federal judge on Sept. 29 granted a disability insurer's motion to dismiss a claimant's complaint because the only claims alleged against the insurer are state law claims, which are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (Charles M. Davis v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, No. 14-43, M.D. Ala.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130732).
ATLANTA - In a Sept. 25 brief supporting a motion to dismiss claims brought against it by a putative class of financial institutions (FI plaintiffs) related to a 2014 breach of its network, Home Depot Inc. argued to a Georgia court that the banks need to take responsibility for their role in the losses they claim to have incurred as a result of the breach (In re: The Home Depot Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 1:14-md-02583, N.D. Ga.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge on Sept. 22 certified a class of plaintiffs alleging that an amendment to a pension plan is illegal under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act because it was not enacted in accordance with ERISA's provisions (Juan M. Reyes v. Bakery and Confectionary Union and Industry International Pension Fund, et al., No. 14-05596, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126972).
LEXINGTON, Ky. - A long-term disability plan is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act because the policy at issue does not fall within ERISA's safe harbor provision, a Kentucky federal judge said Sept. 21 (Eileen Latham v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Co., No. 15-141, E.D. Ky.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125680).
OAKLAND, Calif. - Five defendants secured a defense verdict on Sept. 21 in an Alameda County asbestos trial alleging exposure to friction parts, including a brake-grinding machines manufacturer (Steve C. Swasey and Virginia R. Swasey v. Asbestos Companies, No. RG15758585, Calif. Super., Alameda Co.).
OAKLAND, Calif. - Dismissal of federal claims in a securities class action lawsuit is proper because a lead plaintiff has failed to state a viable claim for relief against a software provider and certain of its executive officers, a federal judge in California ruled Sept. 17 (Viswanath V. Shankar v. Imperva Inc., et al., No. 14-1680, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125279).
PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Lead plaintiffs in a securities class action lawsuit on Sept. 14 asked a federal judge in Rhode Island to preliminarily approve a $48 million settlement with CVS Caremark Corp. and certain of its executive officers over alleged misrepresentations made regarding CVS's 2007 merger with Caremark Rx Inc. (Richard Medoff v. CVS Caremark Corp., et al., No. 09-0554, D. Rhode Island).
MINNEAPOLIS - A group of banks and financial institutions (FIs, collectively) suing Target Corp. in the wake of a massive 2013 data breach, saw their motion for class certification granted Sept. 15 by a Minnesota federal judge who found that they had sufficiently presented prima facie evidence of negligence and related damages to merit class treatment of their claims against the retailer (In re: Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 0:14-md-02522, D. Minn.).