Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioners Infinity Select Insurance Company and Infinity Property and Casualty Corporation (collectively, Infinity) are named Defendants in a pending action (the instant lawsuit). The instant lawsuit stems from an earlier 2013 case (the prior action) in which plaintiffs sued Infinity’s insured for negligence and wrongful death in connection with a three-vehicle collision (the collision). In August 2022, the court issued its ruling. The primary effect of the ruling was to reform the Infinity policy to provide greater bodily injury policy limits of $750,000. Per its terms, the ruling “establishes the policy limits for the jury’s consideration in the upcoming jury trial on the remaining causes of action” including plaintiffs’ cause of action against Infinity for bad faith breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing due to Infinity’s rejection of plaintiffs’ Code of Civil Procedure section 998 demand of $750,000. Infinity filed a petition for a writ of mandate challenging the subject ruling.   The Fifth Appellate District concluded that the trial court erred in reforming the Infinity policy. The court held that the motor carrier of property—not the insurer—bears ultimate responsibility for meeting the requirements necessary to obtain a motor carrier permit. Moreover, even where an insurer intends to issue and certify a policy under section 34631.5, it is not obligated to issue the policy in the full amount of $750,000. Additionally, the court wrote evidence of insurance is not the only means of complying with the MCPPA financial responsibility requirements and infinity was under no duty to determine whether the insured had otherwise complied with MCPPA requirements. View "Infinity Select Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

A Missouri physician prescribed ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to Minnesota residents (Plaintiffs) to treat their severe COVID-19 infections. Pharmacists at Walmart and Hy-Vee stores in Albert Lea, Minnesota, refused to fill the prescriptions. the district court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss all claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s dismissal of their claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress for failure to plausibly plead that the pharmacists’ alleged actions amounted to “extreme and outrageous” conduct.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The allegation that the Hy-Vee pharmacist said he was following “corporate policy” is neither extreme nor outrageous in these stressful circumstances. Moreover, Plaintiffs do not allege experiencing physical or specific psychological consequences after the pharmacists refused to fill their prescriptions, nor that they sought medical or mental health treatment for their distress. To the contrary, they allege both fully recovered from COVID-19 two weeks after self-treating with horse paste. View "William Salier v. Walmart, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, seeking to recover damages he allegedly suffered in an accident with a U.S. Postal Service truck. To meet his burden to show that the crash caused his injuries, Plaintiff planned to rely on expert testimony from several doctors who treated him after the crash. the district court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment. Both the “Court’s orders and Florida law are clear,” it said, that “to prove causation, prognosis, and/or future implications of the injury, the Plaintiff must satisfy Rule 26(a)(2)(B)’s requirements.” The district court held that none of Plaintiff’s filings satisfied those requirements and conducted no analysis on whether they satisfied Rule 26(a)(2)(C).   The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the government. The court remanded this case to the district court for further proceedings. On remand, the court wrote that the district court should address whether Plaintiff’s disclosures complied with Rule 26(a)(2)(C), or it should issue a new scheduling order invoking its discretionary authority to adjust the default requirements of Rule 26(a)(2). The court affirmed the denial of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The court explained that no rule requires any non-retained expert witness to file a written report under Rule 26(a)(2)(B). And whether a doctor is retained (or not) depends on whether she was hired to testify or to treat. But district courts retain the discretionary power to tailor disclosure requirements. The court wrote that here, the district court misunderstood that its power to require detailed submissions from Plaintiff’s witnesses was discretionary. View "Cajule Cedant v. USA" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jane Doe alleged that for a period of seven years, she suffered sexual, physical, and psychological abuse at the hands of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer. Four years after the alleged abuse ended, Doe brought this action against the officer, the United States, the Department of Homeland Security, and two senior DHS officials, asserting various federal and state claims. The district court granted Defendants’ motions for summary judgment based on the applicable statutes of limitations and denied Doe’s request for equitable tolling.   The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s ruling and held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because the evidence in the record could have allowed it to conclude that the prerequisites for equitable tolling were met. The court explained that the record makes plausible the inferences that years of violent sexual abuse and threats to Doe’s life constituted an extraordinary circumstance preventing Doe from sooner pursuing her claims and that she acted with reasonable diligence. View "Doe v. United States" on Justia Law

While responding to an emergency, City of Oxford Police Officer Matthew Brown collided with Patricia Phillips’s vehicle at an intersection. Phillips filed suit to recover for injuries suffered in the collision. After a bench trial, the circuit court found that Officer Brown did not act with reckless disregard in response to the emergency and determined that the City of Oxford was entitled to police-protection immunity under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. Phillips appealed; the Court of Appeals reversed. The majority of the appellate court held that the trial court’s finding that Officer Brown’s actions did not rise to the level of reckless disregard is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and that Oxford was not entitled to police-protection immunity. IThe dissent’s opinion said that the circuit court’s judgment was supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, the Court of Appeals lacked the power to disturb the trial judge’s findings. After its review, the Mississippi Supreme Court found the record contained substantial evidence to support the trial court’s decision. Accordingly, the Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated and affirmed the decision of the trial court. View "Phillips v. City of Oxford" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an invitee, was allegedly injured by exposure to asbestos on the defendant landowner’s property. The landowner, petitioner ExxonMobil Oil Corporation (Mobil), requested a jury instruction to limit its potential liability for injuries caused by “known or obvious” dangers pursuant to § 343A of Restatement (Second) of Torts (Am. L. Inst. 1965). The trial court declined to give the § 343A instruction, and the jury issued a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Mobil argued that the jury should have been instructed on both §§ 343 and 343A of the Restatement as a matter of law. According to Mobil, an instruction on § 343A was necessary to make the jury instructions complete and to allow Mobil to argue its theory of the case. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed: “it is well established that the issuance of jury instructions is ‘within the trial court’s discretion’ and that instructions on ‘a party’s theory of the case’ are not ‘required’ unless they are supported by ‘substantial evidence.’” View "Wright v. 3M Co." on Justia Law

A former BNSF Railway Company employee died from lung cancer in 2018. Plaintiff, on behalf of her late husband’s estate, brought this wrongful death action against BNSF under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging that her husband’s cancer was caused by his exposure to toxins at work. The district court excluded Plaintiff’s expert witness testimony and granted summary judgment to BNSF.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court wrote that there is no direct evidence that Plaintiff’s husband was exposed to asbestos or diesel combustion fumes. Even if a jury could infer that Plaintiff’s husband had been exposed, there is no evidence of the level of exposure. The court explained that while a quantifiable amount of exposure is not required to find causation between toxic exposure and injury, there must be, at a minimum, “evidence from which the factfinder can conclude that the plaintiff was exposed to levels of that agent that are known to cause the kind of harm that the plaintiff claims to have suffered,” There is no such evidence here. Moreover, the court explained that the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion by determining that the expert’s opinion lacked a sufficient foundation and that, in turn, his methodology for proving causation was unreliable. View "Rebecca Lancaster v. BNSF Railway Company" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court in favor of the Town of Bloomfield, the Bloomfield Police Department, and one of its police officers, in this personal injury action, holding that the defense of discretionary act immunity provided by Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-557n(a)(2)(B) does not apply to claims arising from the manner in which an emergency vehicle is operated under the privileges provided by Conn. Gen. Stat. 14-283.Plaintiff and her children sustained personal injuries when police officer Jonathan Sykes collided with the driver's side of Plaintiff's vehicle. Plaintiff brought this action claiming negligence, negligent supervision, and respondent superior. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the claims were barred by discretionary act immunity under section 52-557n(a)(2)(B). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the discretionary act immunity provided by § 52-557n(a)(2)(B) does not apply to the manner in which an emergency vehicle is operated by virtue of the codified, common-law duty to drive with "due regard" pursuant to section 14-283(d). View "Adesokan v. Bloomfield" on Justia Law

United provided Patterson's medical insurance under a plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1101. Patterson received a summary plan description, an ERISA-mandated synopsis of important plan terms but was not given a plan document with all of a plan’s governing language. The summary said that if a beneficiary recovered from a third party for an insured incident, the plan had a right to reimbursement. Patterson was injured in a traffic accident. United covered his medical expenses and notified Patterson it would invoke the reimbursement right. Patterson sued the other driver in state court and joined the plan, seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no reimbursement right. United’s lawyers claimed that no plan document existed. Patterson recovered and settled with the plan for $25,000. Months later, Patterson’s wife suffered injuries in another traffic accident. United paid her medical expenses. Patterson’s wife sued the driver in state court. She obtained a declaratory judgment after the plan's lawyers produced a plan document, stating that it took precedence over the summary and not including a reimbursement right.Patterson then filed a purported class action under ERISA, seeking the return of the $25,000. The district court dismissed the complaint. The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part. Patterson had standing to sue only on his own behalf but has cognizable claims for breach of fiduciary duty and engagement in prohibited transactions. View "Patterson v. United Healthcare Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Following a shooting at a bar in downtown St. Louis, Missouri, Plaintiff, who was injured as a bystander, obtained a $2.5 million judgment against the bar’s owner and operator, Steven Scaglione. Plaintiff thereafter filed this equitable-garnishment claim against Scaglione and his insurer, Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company (Acceptance). Scaglione filed cross-claims against Acceptance, alleging that it had, in bad faith, failed to defend or indemnify him and breached its fiduciary duty. Acceptance filed motions to dismiss both Plaintiff’s and Scaglione’s claims, which the district court granted based on the applicability of an assault-and-battery exclusion in Scaglione’s policy. In this consolidated appeal, both Plaintiff and Scaglione assert that the district court erred in dismissing their claims. 
 The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the district court did not suggest that the assault-and-battery exclusion did not apply solely because the purported victim was not the target. Accordingly, the court rejected this argument and concluded that the unambiguous policy language covers claims of injuries sustained by innocent bystanders arising out of an assault and battery. The court thus concluded that the policy exclusion applies. Further, the court concluded that Scaglione’s negligence was not independent and distinct from the excluded assault and battery. The court explained that the concurrent-proximate-cause rule thus does not apply, and, therefore, the exclusion bars coverage under the policy. Without coverage, Plaintiff and Scaglione cannot state a claim. The district court thus did not err in granting the motions to dismiss. View "Steven Scaglione v. Acceptance Indemnity Ins Co" on Justia Law