The Plaintiffs in this action were participants and beneficiaries of a life insurance plan offered by Defendant Qwest Communications International. In 2007, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Qwest, arguing that the Plan made certain changes in violation of ERISA. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Qwest. Plaintiffs raised seven issues on appeal to the Tenth Circuit, the sum of which was that the Plan misrepresented certain changes that unreasonably impacted employees' retirement benefits. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit found that any misrepresentations were not material or in violation of ERISA. The Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Plan.

"Homes by George," run by Adelaide and Rick George, developed residential real estate known as "Esther's Estates" in Newton. Homes by George entered into a written contract with Defendant Al Hoyt & Sons, Inc., in which Defendant agreed to perform certain work in connection with the development. Defendant was paid but did not complete the work. Plaintiffs alleged breach of contract and claimed that Defendant violated the State Consumer Protection Act (CPA). Defendant counter-claimed that Plaintiff failed to pay amounts due in accordance with the contract. The trial court bifurcated the proceedings to allow a jury to first determine liability claims. A second trial was held on the contract claims. Plaintiffs won on all liability claims in the first trial, and received damages on its breach of contract and CPA claims at the second. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court. Plaintiffs challenged the amounts of damages they were awarded by the trial court. Defendant argued that the trial court erred in its finding of violations under the CPA, and in its damages awarded to Plaintiffs. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed part and reversed part of the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court found that the grant of damages was appropriate in light of the terms of the contract, the state case law, and the evidence presented at trial. However, the Court questioned how the trial court arrived at the amount of damages. The Court remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings on its damages award to Plaintiffs. The Court affirmed the trial court in all other aspects of its decision.

Plaintiff Denise Perrelli appealed a trial court decision in favor of Defendants Bridget and Paul Pastorelle. Plaintiff believed the last time she sent her car insurance company a check for coverage was in 2005. She believed she had coverage on August 4, 2006, the day she got into an accident with Defendants. Geovanni Velverde, a friend, was driving at the time of the accident. He died of his injuries, and Plaintiff suffered serious injuries. Plaintiff sued Defendants alleging that her injuries were caused by Defendants' negligence. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that as an uninsured motorist, Plaintiff had no right to sue. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. The Court found that under the state's "No Fault Act," a person injured while a passenger in her on uninsured vehicle was barred from suing for her injuries.

Plaintiff sued defendants over whether plaintiff had been fully paid for construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance work performed for defendants. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground, inter alia, that plaintiff was not licensed to do home improvement business in his individual name. At issue was whether plaintiff, by doing business in his own name and not the name on his license, violated Westchester County Administrative Code 863.319(1)(b). The court held that a licensed home improvement contractor who entered into a contract using a name other than the one on his license was not barred from enforcing the contract unless the other party was deceived or otherwise prejudiced by the misnomer. The court also held that the forfeiture of the right to be paid for work done was an excessive penalty in this case for what seemed to have been an inadvertent and harmless violation of the County Code. Accordingly, the order of the appellate division should be reversed with costs and defendants' motion for summary judgment denied.

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging contract and negligence claims against defendants. Defendants subsequently appealed from a district court order denying its motion under M.R.Civ.P 55(c) to set aside an entry of default and its motion under M.R.Civ.P 60(b) for relief from default judgment. Plaintiff cross-appealed the court's denial of attorney fees. The court held that good cause did not exist to set aside the entry of default where defendants willfully disregarded the judicial process when it failed to answer after being served properly and where defendants had not established that it possessed a meritorious defense that would have completely eliminated its liability. The court also held that no default judgment existed when defendants moved for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) where an interlocutory judgment did not constitute a final judgment order under the rule. The court declined to address the issue raised for the first time on appeal regarding default judgment against defendants. The court further held that the district court correctly denied plaintiff's request for attorney fees where the complaint raised no allegations related to a default on defendants' loan and the trust indenture provision did not entitle either party to attorney fees under these circumstances.

Plaintiff filed a suit against defendant alleging claims of wrongful termination ("Count I"), trade disparagement ("Count II"), breach of contract for failure to negotiate in good faith ("Count III"), breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing ("Count IV"), and fraud ("Count V") arising out of a Creative Services Agreement ("Agreement") entered into between the parties. At issue was whether the district court properly dismissed the five counts asserted by plaintiff's complaint with prejudice and granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court held that the district court erred in dismissing Count III against defendant for failure to negotiate in good faith an alleged agreement to develop and launch a Todd Oldham branded line of merchandise to be sold exclusively at defendant's stores where plaintiff alleged three plausible bases for the claim. The court also held that the district court erred in dismissing Count I for declaratory judgment that defendant wrongfully terminated the parties' Agreement, by failing to give notice of plaintiff's alleged breaches and 30 days' opportunity to cure, under which plaintiff's principal, Todd Oldham, was to provide design services to defendant. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the trade disparagement, common law fraud, and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

A suit by a school district employee, terminated after absence under the Family and Medical Leave Act, was dismissed. The Seventh Circuit remanded claims under the FMLA and for breach of contract. The parties entered a settlement agreement. After the superintendent for the district took his own life, the employee challenged the agreement and refused to sign the agreement. The district court dismissed the entire case and a motion for sanctions against the employee is pending. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The oral settlement, agreed-to in the presence of a magistrate, is valid; the fact that the employee was unaware that the superintendent was under investigation for child molestation does not amount to concealment of a fact material to this case. The employee's refusal to comply with court orders to sign the agreement left the court with little choice but to dismiss her claims, causing forfeiture of a substantial settlement.

When the plaintiff left the company, the parties entered an agreement about how the company would handle requests for references. In a suit alleging breach, the district court entered summary judgment in favor of the company and awarded $173,232 in attorney fees. On remand a jury returned a general verdict that the company did not breach the agreement and the court awarded $522,527 attorney fees and costs and expenses in the amount of $40,493.64. On a second appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The trial court properly allowed the company to argue waiver. Jury instructions concerning waiver, agency, breach, and damages were within the court's discretion. The award of fees was commercially reasonable and not inequitable.

Plaintiff, who was employed as the City of McDonough's ("city") chief building inspector, brought suit against the city when the city refused to pay him severance under an employment agreement contract. At issue was whether the contract was binding to a successor municipal council in violation of OCGA 36-30-3(a). The court held that the contract was ultra vires and void because the contract was renewed automatically and the severance package required the city to pay plaintiff his salary and benefits for an entire year after the year in which the contract was terminated.

New York Marine & General Insurance Company ("NYMAGIC") and Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ("NUFIC-PA") were both insuring Bayou Steel Corporation ("Bayou") when an employee of Bayou's Illinois stevedoring contractor, Kindra Marine Terminal ("Kindra"), was injured during Kindra's unloading of Bayou's steel bundles from a vessel belonging to Memco Barge Lines ("Memco"). Memco had contracted with Bayou to haul the cargo for Bayou by barge from Louisiana to Illinois. At issue was whether Kindra was Bayou's contractor or subcontractor for purposes of the provision in NYMAGIC's policy that excluded coverage of Bayou's liability for bodily injury incurred by employees of Bayou's subcontractors but did not exclude coverage of such injuries incurred by Bayou's contractors. The court held that, because Bayou was the principal party, paying party, and not the prime contractor, performance party, under both its barge transportation agreement with Memco and its offloading agreement with Kindra, there was no way for Kindra to have been a subcontractor of Bayou within the intendment of NYMAGIC's policy's exclusion of coverage. Kindra contracted directly with Bayou, not with some contractor of Bayou, to offload Bayou's cargo, so Kindra was Bayou's contractor. Accordingly, NYMAGIC's coverage exclusion did not apply to the employee's injuries because he was the employee of a contractor of Bayou.