Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Appellants, who were maimed in a hot air balloon accident in southeastern Pennsylvania in 2015, pursued appellate challenges to the District of Maryland’s rulings against them and in favor of T.H.E. Insurance Company (the “Insurer”) in an insurance coverage dispute. In federal court proceedings initiated in Maryland, Appellants sued certain of the Insurer’s named insureds, and a business called New Horizon Balloon Team (collectively, the “Insureds”) — for the gruesome injuries Appellants’ sustained in the balloon accident (the “damages lawsuit”). While the damages lawsuit was pending, the Insurer initiated these insurance coverage proceedings in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, naming as defendants the three Insureds, plus Appellants. The district court awarded summary judgment in favor of the Insurer’s contention with respect to a $100,000 coverage limit for each balloon passenger. The Memorandum Opinion also rejected both of Appellants’ bad faith claims. Appellants appealed those rulings.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. Applying Maryland principles of res judicata in this dispute, the court was satisfied that the coverage issue presented by the Insurer in these proceedings is not barred by the settlement agreement in the damages lawsuit. As such, the court agreed with the district court that Appellants are not entitled to a summary judgment award on the coverage issue on res judicata grounds. Further, the district court thus did not err in ruling Appellants were inside the balloon’s basket at the time of their injuries. As such, Appellants were “passengers” under the Policy and Coverage B’s limit of $100,000 per passenger applies. View "T.H.E. Insurance Company v. Melyndia Davis" on Justia Law

This dispute over UM coverage arose from a motor vehicle accident wherein an uninsured motorist struck and killed Macy Lee Alvey, III, who was in the course and scope of his employment with Rony’s Towing & Recovery, LLC (“Rony’s Towing”). The Louisiana Supreme Court granted this writ to determine whether the failure to include the insurer’s name on an uninsured/underinsured motorist (“UM”) coverage selection form rendered it invalid. Because inclusion of the insurer’s name was an express requirement on the face of the UM form itself, the Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeal that the failure to include such information resulted in an invalid waiver of coverage. View "Berkeley Assurance Co. v. Willis, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Walter George was standing at the roadside of his home in Houma, Louisiana, at the same time defendant Progressive Waste Solutions of La., Inc. (“Progressive”) was picking up garbage on plaintiff’s street. While plaintiff was picking remnants of garbage left behind, he was struck by the hydraulic arm of a garbage truck and sustained injuries. Plaintiff and his wife Janie petitioned for damages against Progressive and ABC Insurance Company. Champion Medical Center entered into a “Professional Service Agreement” (“agreement”) with Ascendant Healthcare (“company”), which identified itself in this agreement as being in “the business of arranging for the provision of professional medical services to persons whose health care costs are paid by liability insurance companies and/or attorneys that enter into arrangements with [Ascendant] for the provision of such services....” The agreement also stated that “[p]rovider agrees and hereby appoints Company as its agent for purposes of filing a medical lien for the services rendered by Provider. Plaintiff’s former counsel at the law firm of Spagnoletti & Company executed a “Letter of Guaranty and Protection.” The document, signed by Marcus Spagnoletti only, identified “the undersigned attorney and law firm” as the “GUARANTOR,” “ASCENDANT HEALTHCARE, LLC” as the “Company,” and the patient as Walter George (who received medical treatment resulting from an “ACCIDENT” in 2015). After the parties engaged in initial discovery, defendant Progressive filed a Motion in Limine on March 10, 2020, seeking to exclude or strike the medical bills related to plaintiff’s surgery and charged to Ascendant Healthcare. Defendant asserted the collateral source rule did not apply for these charges because they were "simply amounts charged," and plaintiff has not diminished his patrimony in order to receive his medical care. The motion was ultimately granted, but the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed. "In the absence of any evidence that plaintiff is not liable for the full billed medical charges in this matter, defendant cannot benefit from any reduction as a result of the subject medical factoring agreement." The matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "George v. Progressive Waste Solutions of Louisiana, et al." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court in favor of Defendants and dismissing this suit in accordance with Sup. Ct. R. Civ. P. 37, holding that dismissal was warranted in this case.Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants, St. Thomas More Catholic Church, St. Peter's By-the-Sea Episcopal Church, and the Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence alleging that the excessive notice emanating from Defendants' bell towers was a nuisance and seeking more than $30 million in damages. The trial justice ultimately granted Defendants' motion to dismiss based on Plaintiff's answers to interrogatories, including an interrogatory requiring him to identify any expert witness he expected to call at trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff's failure to provide a complete discovery response after repeated orders and admonitions by the trial court warranted dismissal. View "Devaney v. St. Thomas More Catholic Church" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision reversing the trial court's judgment for Plaintiff after denying the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant, the manufacturing company Johns Manville, holding that the court of appeals did not err in applying the relevant law when reviewing John Manville's motion for summary judgment.Plaintiff brought this action alleging that Johns Manville intentionally caused her husband to be injured while working. After the trial court denied Johns Manville's motion for summary judgment the jury found in favor of Plaintiff. The court of appeals reversed, holding that summary judgment should have been granted in John Manville's favor and that the case should not have been given to the jury. The Supreme Court affirmed after reaffirming that when reviewing a trial court's decision to deny summary judgment in cases in which a jury ultimately reached a verdict in the nonmoving party's favor, an appellate court must construe the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party when applying the law, holding that the court of appeals did not err in its review. View "Bliss v. Johns Manville" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court made permanent a preliminary writ of prohibition it issued directing the circuit court to vacate its order denying Missouri Highway Patrol Trooper Mayela Barron's motion for summary judgment and sustain Trooper Barron's motion for summary judgment against Justin Osborn, holding that Trooper Barron was entitled to official immunity.Osborn brought this action alleging negligence claims against Trooper Barron in her official capacity after Osborn's vehicle collided with Trooper Barron's vehicle. Osborn moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Trooper Barron was not entitled to official immunity or immunity because of the public duty doctrine. The circuit court denied the motion and granted partial summary judgment for Osborn, concluding that Trooper Barron was not entitled to official immunity. The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition, holding (1) the record established that Trooper Barron was a public official, working in the scope of her employment, performing a function that was not ministerial, and Trooper Barron performed these duties without malice; and (2) therefore, Trooper Barron was entitled to official immunity, and a writ of prohibition was appropriate. View "State ex rel. Barron v. Honorable Beger" on Justia Law

A police chase ended when the fleeing armed robber crashed into Plaintiff Thaer Mahdi’s tailor shop. Officers fired scores of bullets at the driver, and many hit the shop. The shop was badly damaged, and Mahdi was psychologically traumatized. Mahdi filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD); the Unified Police Department (UPD); and four officers of the Utah Highway Patrol (UHP)—Superintendent Michael Rapich, Sergeant Chris Shelby, and Troopers Jed Miller and Jon Thompson. Plaintiff alleged: (1) the responding officers used excessive force in violation of his right to substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; and (2) that the officers’ unconstitutional use of force resulted from Superintendent Rapich’s failure to train and supervise his subordinates and from the defendant law-enforcement agencies’ policies and customs, including their failure to properly train or supervise their employees. Defendants moved to dismiss Mahdi’s first amended complaint for failure to state any claims. In response, Mahdi moved for leave to file a second amended complaint. The United States District Court for the District of Utah denied the motion as futile and granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court held that Mahdi had not adequately alleged that any officers violated his constitutional right to substantive due process and that in the absence of any such violation the police agencies also could not be liable under § 1983. Mahdi appealed, challenging the dismissal of his claims and denial of his motion for leave to file his second amended complaint. Finding no reversible error in the district court's judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of plaintiffs claims and denial of his motion. View "Mahdi v. Salt Lake Police Department, et al." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) reversing the rulings of the compensation judge finding that C. Jeremy Lagasse was entitled to contingent fees under Minn. Stat. 176.081, subd. 1(c) and that Larry Horton was entitled to partial reimbursement of fees under Minn. Stat. 176.081, subd. 7, holding that the WCCA incorrectly applied subdivision 1(c) in its standard of review.Horton, who was injured during his employment with Aspen Waste Systems and sought permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits through Aspen's insurer (Insurer), retained Lagasse to represent him in the matter. The compensation judge determined that Lagasse was entitled to contingent fees and that Horton was entitled to partial reimbursement of fees. The WCCA reversed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding (1) the WCCA incorrectly applied subdivision 1(c); and (2) the compensation judge and the WCCA incorrectly applied subdivision 7. View "Lagasse v. Horton" on Justia Law

After Clifford Bufford, an employee of Borbet Alabama, Inc., injured his left arm in a workplace accident, he sued seven of his co-employees claiming that his injury was the result of their willful conduct. The co-employees sought summary judgment, arguing that they were immune from suit under Alabama's Workers' Compensation Act ("the Act") because, they said, there was no evidence to support Bufford's claims. Bufford voluntarily dismissed his claims against all the defendants except the petitioner, maintenance supervisor Jeffrey Varoff. The circuit court then denied Varoff's motion for summary judgment. He petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to enter judgment in his favor on the basis of the immunity afforded by the Act. We grant the petition and issue the writ. The Supreme Court concurred there was not evidence in the trial court record that would support a finding that Varoff had engaged in willful conduct as that term was described in § 25-5-11(c). The Court held Varoff was immune from liability under § 25-5- 53. Accordingly, the trial court erred by denying Varoff's motion for summary judgment. His petition was therefore granted, and the trial court directed to vacate its order denying Varoff's motion. View "Ex parte Jeffrey Varoff." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court conditionally granted a writ of mandamus sought by real parties in interest (the Paus) in this action brought against Relators (collectively, Auburn Creek) seeking $33 million in damages allegedly caused by carbon-monoxide exposure in a dwelling the Paus leased from Auburn Creek, holding that the trial court clearly abused its discretion in denying Auburn Creek's motion to compel.Auburn Creek filed a motion to compel a neuropsychological exam for each of the Pau family members. The trial court denied the motion with prejudice on the grounds that the scope of the exams was not sufficiently circumscribed and subsequently denied Auburn Creek's request for mandamus relief. The Supreme Court conditionally granted relief, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that Auburn Creek had not shown good cause for the exams. View "In re Auburn Creek Limited Partnership" on Justia Law