Case Summaries

Bankruptcy Law

[05/18] Wright v. Owens Corning
In a suit for damages related to defects in roofing shingles manufactured by a defendant who had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, summary judgment to the defendant is reversed, where: 1) the district court correctly determined that the plaintiffs held "claims" under the Bankruptcy Code, based on JELD-WEN, Inc. v. Van Brunt (In re Grossman’s Inc.), 607 F.3d 114 (3d Cir. 2010); but 2) it should not have held that those claims were discharged, because at the time of the confirmation date, Avellino v. M. Frenville Co. (In re M. Frenville Co.), 744 F.2d 332 (3d Cir. 1984), controlled the status of their "claims," so the notice given did not afford the plaintiffs due process.

[05/14] Hall v. US
In Chapter 12 bankruptcy proceedings in which the debtors proposed treating a capital gains tax on the postpetition sale of their farm as an unsecured claim to be paid to the extent funds were available, with the unpaid balance being discharged, the objection of the IRS is sustained, as the federal income tax liability resulting from the sale was not "incurred by the estate" under section 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, and thus was neither collectible nor dischargeable in the Chapter 12 plan.

[05/14] In re Heritage Highgate, Inc.
In a residential home builder's Chapter 11 proceedings, the Bankruptcy Court's determination that the secured claims of a group of secondary creditors should be valued at zero is affirmed, where: 1) in proceedings to value secured claims under section 506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, a burden-shifting analysis is appropriate; 2) the Bankruptcy Court properly concluded that the fair market value of the debtor's project as of the plan confirmation date controlled whether the creditors' claims were secured; 3) denying the creditors future lot sale proceeds that exceed the project's judicially determined value as of confirmation did not constitute a form of impermissible lien stripping; and 4) the Bankruptcy Court did not clearly err in determining the value of the collateral securing the secured debt.

[05/04] In re VistaCare Group, LLC
In a case in which the purchaser of a retirement and assisted living facility alleged that the seller had damaged the purchaser's interests by wrongfully selling lots within the same subdivision plan, an order of the district court affirming the order of the bankruptcy court granting the purchaser's motion for leave to sue the seller's Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee in state court is affirmed, where: 1) under the doctrine established in Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (1881), leave of the bankruptcy court is required before instituting such an action; and 2) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the purchaser had met its burden of establishing that its claims against the trustee were "not without foundation."

[05/01] In re Federal-Mogul Global Inc.
In chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in which the debtor sought to transfer rights under insurance liability policies to a personal injury trust set up to resolve asbestos-related liability, the lower courts' rejection of the insurance companies' objection to the plan's confirmation is affirmed, where the anti-assignment provisions in the insurance policies were preempted by the Bankruptcy Code at 11 USC section 1123(a)(5)(B) to the extent they purported to prohibit transfer to a trust set up under 11 USC section 524(g).

[04/23] In re Jacobson
In bankruptcy proceedings in which the trustee filed a complaint claiming that certain money and property belonged to the bankruptcy estate, the bankruptcy appellate panel's rejection of all claims is: 1) reversed in part, where proceeds from the sale of a homestead lost their exempt status under California law; and 2) affirmed in part, where a) rental property and its income was solely owned by the debtor's husband, b) the trustee lacked standing to claim that the husband's inheritance, which was used to purchase the rental property, belonged to the bankruptcy estate from earlier bankruptcy proceedings, and c) judicial and collateral estoppel did not require turnover of the rental property.

Read More

Injury & Tort Law

[05/18] Crowther v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
In consolidated negligence actions under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) against two railroad defendants brought by a former employee, the district court's judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed, where: 1) no fact-finder could reasonably have inferred that the plaintiff first became aware of a work connection with his knee pain and neck injury within the period of limitation; 2) there was no error in entering judgment as a matter of law on negligence claims based on inadequate tools and failure to obtain ergonomic studies of the activities required to perform the plaintiff's various jobs; and 3) it was not reversible error to admit collateral source evidence that the plaintiff was receiving disability benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act.

[05/16] Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Stolberg
In a suit by an insurer to obtain a declaration that its policy did not obligate it either to defend a personal injury suit or to indemnify the insured, the district court's summary judgment in favor of the insurer is affirmed, where: 1) the contract excluded coverage for injuries arising out of operations performed for insured by contractors; and 2) other exclusions in the policy did not create ambiguity so as to provide coverage.

[05/11] Al Shimari v. CACI International, Inc.
In suits by former prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, alleging that the defendant prison contractors and certain of their employees were liable in common law tort and under the Alien Tort Statute for torturing and abusing them during their incarceration, consolidated appeals by the defendants are dismissed, where: 1) there was no independent basis for appellate jurisdiction premised on the law-of-war defense, Saleh preemption, or Mangold immunity, so the Fourth Circuit was without pendent jurisdiction to further consider the appellants' contentions that the plaintiffs' claims presented nonjusticiable political questions; and 2) the exercise of jurisdiction was precluded regardless of whether the appellants' political question defense was inextricably intertwined with any of the three proffered bases for jurisdiction, or whether those bases were similarly interdependent with one another.

[05/07] Bettencourt v. Hennessey Industries, Inc.
In a suit claiming that the use of the defendant's machines to grind asbestos-containing brake linings resulted in exposure to airborne asbestos fibers that caused injury, the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant on all causes of action is reversed in part, where it was error to grant judgment on the pleadings to the defendant and an abuse of discretion to deny the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaints with respect to their causes of action for strict products liability and negligence.

[05/03] Beckwith v. Dahl
In a suit alleging intentional interference with an expected inheritance (IIEI) and deceit by false promise, the trial court's order sustaining a demurrer and dismissing the case is reversed, where: 1) the tort of IIEI is recognized as a valid cause of action; and 2) the complaint alleged sufficient facts to support a claim for deceit, as all the elements of promissory fraud were adequately alleged, but there were insufficient facts stated to allege IIEI.

[05/03] Bready v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
By memorandum, it is held that the Appellate Division properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in each of two consolidated cases, where the defendant made a prima facie showing that it did not breach the duty of care applicable under the Federal Employer's Liability Act.

Read More