Case Summaries

Commercial Law

[08/07] Peck v. Cingular Wireless, LLC
In a class action lawsuit brought by a former employee against Cingular claiming, inter alia, it violated state law by passing a business and occupation tax (B&O tax) on to consumers in the form of a line item charge, dismissal of the suit is vacated where, contrary to the ruling below, there was no federal preemption of plaintiff's state law claims.

[08/07] Baude v. Heath
In a commerce-clause challenge to Indiana's regulations on direct wine shipments, an injunction against enforcement of the contested provisions is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) a wholesale clause forbidding any winery that acts as a wholesaler in any state from making direct shipments to Indiana consumers overly burdened interstate commerce while not providing sufficient local benefit; but 2) a face-to-face clause requiring would-be direct-wine buyers to visit a winery once in order to provide proof of age did not create such a burden.

[08/05] E.T. Browne Drug Co. v. Cococare Prods., Inc.
In a trademark dispute between manufacturers of beauty and personal-care products over the allegedly trademarked phrase "Cocoa Butter Formula," summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the phrase was generic or descriptive; but 2) plaintiff did not produce evidence to show that the phrase had acquired secondary meaning sufficient to create a protectable trademark interest.

More...

Insurance Law

[08/07] Flamingo Express, Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin.
In a complaint filed with the FAA by the operator of an air service alleging that a city had violated its obligations under federal law by, among other things, failing to approve an application and requiring that petitioner obtain unreasonably high liability insurance coverage, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the city did not violate its federal obligations.

[08/06] Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Staffing Concepts, Inc.
In a suit over workers' compensation insurance policies, an order striking a motion to compel arbitration is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction where the order was a delay incident to an orderly process, and not a final refusal of a request to stay judicial proceedings.

[08/04] Gore Design Completions. Ltd. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
In a suit by an insured seeking a declaratory judgment that defendant-insurer had a duty to defend plaintiff against negligence claims, summary judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where: 1) under the Texas "eight corners" rule, an insurance company determines its duty to defend an underlying liability lawsuit with reference to the terms of the policy and the pleadings of the third-party claimant; and 2) the language of the policy and the claim, liberally construed, triggered defendant's duty to defend plaintiff for work performed by plaintiff's subcontractor, and none of the policy's exclusions applied to relieve defendant of its duty.

More...

Oil & Gas

[08/01] Tonicstar Ltd. v. Lovegreen Turbine Servs., Inc.
In a declaratory judgment action claiming plaintiff had no duty to defend or indemnify insured-turbine servicer in an action for damages brought by an oil refinery owner, summary judgment for insurer is affirmed where: 1) a particular policy exclusion, which excludes coverage for property damage to property which must be repaired because the insured's work was incorrectly performed, applied; and 2) it excluded both the cost of restoring a damaged compressor, as well as the significantly greater sum for lost business while it was out of service.

[07/31] Kehm Oil Co. v. Texaco, Inc.
In a suit alleging violations of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) by a franchisor who terminated a franchise agreement, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) the PMPA claim was time-barred as plaintiff did not have a "franchise relationship" with defendant after 1987; 2) a remand was necessary to determine whether plaintiff's state-law claims were preempted by the PMPA; and 3) additional defendants were properly dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.

[07/30] Regents of Univ. of California v. Superior Ct. of San Diego County
In an antitrust action against defendants-energy suppliers, petition for writ of mandate challenging a denial of plaintiff's motion to compel disclosure of privileged documents that defendants produced during the course of federal government investigations is denied where the threat of regulatory action and indictment posed the risk of significant costs and consequences to defendants such that they could cooperate with the DOJ's investigation without waiving the attorney-client and attorney work privileges.

More...