Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

The Stockmans entered into an extension of their mineral lease with Chesapeake Louisiana, L.P. and received a $240,000 bonus. In May 2008, the Stockmans entered into a mineral lease with Petrohawk Properties, L.P. for a $1.45 million bonus. Petrohawk then dishonored the draft and executed a second mineral lease with the Stockmans, paying them a $1.7 million bonus. Chesapeake sued the Stockmans for breach of contract, and the parties settled at trial. The Stockmans then sued Petrohawk for fraud in obtaining the first mineral lease, and Chespeake sued Petrohawk for intentional interference with its contract with the Stockmans. The district court (1) found that Petrohawk procured the first mineral lease by fraud and rescinded the lease, (2) dismissed Chesapeake's tort claim, and (3) dismissed Petrohawk's claim for a return of its bonus money. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Petrohawk obtained the first lease by fraud, and the district court did not err in rescinding the lease, awarding attorney's fees to the Stockmans; (2) the district court did not err in dismissing Petrohawk's counterclaim for the return of the lease bonus; and (3) the district court correctly dismissed Chespeake's intentional interference with a contract claim.

Plaintiff, Pervasive Software Inc., a Delaware corporation having its principal office in Austin, Texas, sued Defendant, Lexware GmbH & Co. Kg, a corporation organized under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, for damages and injunctive relief on the basis of breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and conversion in a Texas state court. Lexware removed the case to the federal district court, and that court, in response to Lexware's motion, dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction over Lexware. Pervasive appealed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that Pervasive had failed to establish a prima facie case that Lexware minimum contacts with Texas to support the exercise of either specific or general personal jurisdiction over Lexware.

Appellant was injured in a car accident. The other car in the accident was owned by Amanda Salgado, a superintendent of a church (the Church), and driven by Michael Meyer, a member of the Church. The accident occurred while Meyer and other Church members were taking a lunch break from cleaning and repairing Church property. Appellant sued the Church, Salgado, and Meyer in state court. The Church's insurer (Insurer) then sought a declaratory judgment in federal court resolving whether its insurance policy covered Appellant's accident. The district court held that Insurer had no duty to defend the Church and Salgado. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court's judgment, holding that the district court (1) erroneously held that Insurer had no duty to defend the Church and Salgado, (2) improperly adjudicated the scope of Insurer's duty to indemnify, and (3) improperly asserted jurisdiction over Appellant's state-law claims. Additionally, the Court held (1) Insurer had a duty to defend the Church and Salgado in Appellant's underlying state lawsuit, and (2) the scope of Insurer's duty to indemnify could not be adjudicated until after Appellant's claims are decided in state court.

Michael Daniel drove a truck for Cryogenic Transportation to a plant owned by Airgas Carbonics. Upon exiting the Airgas plant, Daniel fatally collided with a passing train operated by Illinois Central Railroad Company. Illinois Central filed suit against Cryogenic Transportation and Michael Daniel's widow, Clydine Daniel, as representative of Michael's estate, seeking recovery for damage to its property resulting from the collision. Clydine filed a counterclaim sounding in negligence and added Airgas as a counterclaim defendant, seeking recovery for damages resulting from Michael's death. The district court dismissed the counterclaim against Airgas for failure to state a claim, concluding that Airgas owed no duty to Michael at the time of the collision. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that after Michael exited Airgas's plant, Airgas did not owe him a duty under Mississippi tort law.

In this diversity suit, a landowner sought injunctive and compensatory relief from a telephone company for a trespass and for slandering its title to certain property. The district court granted summary judgment to the telephone company. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings, holding (1) the district court erred in concluding that the telephone company had a constructive license across the property; (2) the district court incorrectly dismissed the landowner's claim for compensatory damages; and (3) summary judgment against the landowner's claims for slander of title and punitive damages was appropriate.

Plaintiff, a machine repairman at a glass bottling plant filed a personal injury lawsuit against Arkema, Inc., the designer and manufacturer of a device known as a C-4 Hood. Plaintiff claimed that the C-4 Hood, to which he worked in close proximity, proximately caused his restrictive lung disease and pulmonary fibrosis. After excluding the opinions of Plaintiff's expert witnesses on the element of causation, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Arkema because Plaintiff was unable to prove causation without the opinions of his excluded causation experts. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in all respects except as to Plaintiff's claims regarding his acute injuries, as Plaintiff's acute injuries were within those limited circumstances where expert opinion was unnecessary. Remanded for further proceedings concerning Johnson's alleged acute injuries.

A jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff on its claim of fraud and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing against defendants. Defendants' misrepresentations induced plaintiff to settle the asbestos exposure claims of two former employees whom defendants represented in a state-court lawsuit. On appeal, defendants contended that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the instant case under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and alternatively that the case called for Burford abstention. Defendants also contended that the evidence established their statute-of-limitations and waiver defenses as a matter of law. The court concluded, however, that defendants misconceived the legal authorities relevant to their jurisdiction, abstention, and waiver arguments. Regarding the statute of limitations issue, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could have found for plaintiff. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment.

Mid-Continent appealed the district court's final judgment that it had a duty to indemnify Davis Construction in the underlying wrongful death action brought by the family of decedent Jorge Serrato. The court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Serrato was an independent contractor and not an employee of Davis Construction.

Petitioner, the former employer of a retired longshoreman, challenged a Benefits Review Board (BRB) decision that overruled an ALJ twice and held petitioner liable for the longshoreman's hearing loss. The court held that the BRB erred in rejecting expert evidence in part and in then rejecting the ALJ's first conclusion based on his evaluation of the evidence. Further, the court need not reach the aggravation rule issue raised by petitioner. Because the BRB initially applied the wrong legal test and standard of review to the ALJ's decision, the court reversed.

A jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff on its claims of fraud and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing against defendants where defendants' misrepresentations induced plaintiff to settle the asbestos exposure claims of two of plaintiff's employees whom defendants represented in a state-court lawsuit. On appeal, defendants contended that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the instant case under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and alternatively that the case called for Burford v. Sun Oil Co. abstention. Defendants also contended that the trial evidence established their statute-of-limitations and waiver defenses as a matter of law. The court held that defendants misconceived the legal authorities relevant to their jurisdiction, abstention, and waiver arguments. Regarding the statute of limitations issue, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could have found for plaintiff. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment.