In Brown v. Oil States (No. 10-31257, revised Dec. 27, 2011), the plaintiff in a wrongful discharge case testified that he left his job because of racial harassment, and while that case was pending, testified in a personal injury case that he left the same job because of a back injury.  Finding that the plaintiff “plainly committed perjury” with this inconsistent testimony, the Court found no abuse of discretion in the sanction of dismissal of his employment suit.  (Op. at 13).

The case of International Fidelity Insurance v. Sweet Little Mexico Corporation (No. 11-40449, Dec. 22, 2011) rejected an argument that the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) had exclusive jurisdiction over a case between an importer and its surety about certain customs liabilities.  Op. at 4-10.  The Court then found no abuse of discretion in proceeding with that case even though there was a first-filed action in the CIT between the importer and U.S. Customs.  Acknowledging some overlap between the basic issue of customs liability and the secondary issue of the surety’s responsibility for that liability, the Court found that on these facts, “the ‘core issues’ in the two forums are not the same.”  Op. at 11.  The Court concluded that, based on the terms of the surety contract, the importer had to reimburse the surety for payments made “regardless of the outcome of the proceedings before the CIT.”  Op. at 13-16.  While the Court’s analysis of the “first-filed” and surety issues turns on the specific facts of the case, the issues addressed and the basic legal principles cited are broadly applicable to those topics.

The Court does not publish many opinions outside of the Daubert area that construe the Federal Rules of Evidence.  New judge Stephen Higginson, in a technical opinion about conditions of prison release for medical treatment, addressed an uncommon hearsay issue in Sealed Appellee v. Sealed Appellant, No. 10-11163 (5th Cir. Dec. 19, 2011).  The Court affirmed the admissibility of a probation officer’s letter under the “public records” exception of Fed. R. Evid. 803(8), despite its observation that the letter “does attribute some statements to [Appellant’s] sister.”  Op. at 7 (citing analysis of a similar issue in  Moss v. Ole South Real Estate, 933 F.2d 1300, 1309-10 (5th Cir. 1991)).

Today’s Texas Lawyer features a list of the Fifth Circuit’s “top ten” cases from 2011: http://tinyurl.com/78navn2

The case of Gilbane Building Co. v. Admiral Insurance (No. 10-20817, Dec. 12, 2011) involved an insurer’s duty to defend and indemnify an injury claim under Texas law.  The Court first reviewed the basic rules in the Circuit for an “Erie guess” about state law.  Op. at 4-5 & 8 n.2.  The Court found that Texas’s “express negligence” rule was limited to contractual indemnity and did not bear on whether the plaintiff was an “additional insured.”  The Court then applied Texas’s “eight corners” rule and found no duty to defend, reminding that this rule “consider[s] only the facts alleged in the pleadings and . . . not . . . factual assumptions or inferences that were not pleaded.”  Id. at 13.   The Court declined to recognize an exception to the “eight corners” rule for claims involving a plaintiff’s unpleaded contributory negligence.  Id. at 14-17.  The Court concluded by affirming the district court’s summary judgment for the insured on the duty to indemnify, applying a broader standard based on “the facts proven in the underlying suit.”  Id. at 17-18 & n.4 (acknowledging that “this may seem like an unusual result,” but referring to a similar result in D.R. Horton v. Markel Int’l Ins., 300 S.W.3d 740, 744 (Tex. 2009)).

Thompson v. Zurich American Insurance, No. 10-51013 (Dec. 2, 2011) presented a common law “bad faith” action under Texas law about handling of a workers compensation claim (Insurance Code rights being limited after Texas Mutual v. Ruttiger, No. 08-0751 (Tex. Aug. 26, 2011)).  After reminding that Rule 56 asks “whether a rational trier of fact could find for the non-moving party,” op. at 4, the Court reviewed Texas case law on several issues in light of Ruttiger, and found that on the facts presented, none of the following showed bad faith: (1) conflict between expert reports; (2) lack of personal treatment of the plaintiff by the expert; (3) the expert’s record of primarily working for insurance companies; (4) the expert’s analysis of “aggravation”; or (5) the insurer’s conduct after the initial review.  Op. at 5-13.  The footnotes in the opinion summarize the present state of Texas law on several “bad faith” claims-handling issues.