A company leased a railcar, and undertook to return it “cleaned of commodities,” which was defined to mean (among other things) “safe for human entry.” Sampson v. GATX Corporation, No. 12-30406 (March 19, 2013, unpublished). The district court concluded that this provision was only part of the contract devoted to allocation of the cost of cleaning.  The Fifth Circuit disagreed, and found that the plaintiff had raised a fact issue about whether this contractual duty could give rise to tort liability to someone injured in the car, pursuant to section 324A of the Second Restatement of Torts.

In a rare but classical exercise of judicial review of a state law’s “rational basis,” the Fifth Circuit found a Louisiana economic regulation unconstitutional.  The Associated Press and the Times-Picayune provide some initial commentary.  The Louisiana State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors barred an abbey of Benedictine monks from selling caskets.  In late 2012, the Fifth Circuit certified a question to the Louisiana Supreme Court about the Board’s authority, which that court declined to answer.  The Fifth Circuit then reviewed the Board’s actions and agreed with the district court that the regulation was not rationally related to the state’s claimed interests in consumer protection or public health, affirming an injunction against its enforcement.  St. Joseph Abbey v. Castille, No. 11-30757 (March 20, 2013).  The Court emphasized both the limited role of “rational basis” review and its importance when it does apply: “The deference we owe expresses mighty principles of federalism and judicial roles.  The principle we protect from the hand of the State today protects an equally vital core principle — the taking of wealth and handing it to others . . . as ‘economic’ protection of the rulemakers’ pockets.”

The Court released a revised opinion in Janvey v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, No. 11-10704 (originally issued October 23, 2012; revised March 18, 2013).  The expanded opinion withdraws the earlier holding that a federal equity receiver has standing to assert creditors’ fraudulent transfer claims arising from a Ponzi scheme.  The Court now holds that the receiver only has standing to assert the claims of the entities in receivership, but those entities are not considered to be “in pari delicto” with the operator of the scheme: “The appointment of the receiver removed the wrongdoer from the scene.  The corporations were no more [the perpetrator’s] evil zombies.”  Id. at 6 (quoting Eberhard v. Marcu, 530 F.3d 122, 132 (2d Cir. 2008), and citing Scholes v. Lehmann, 56 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 1995) (Posner, C.J.)).

Materials Evaluation and Technology Corporation (“METCO”) had a CGL policy from Mid-Continent that it renewed annually beginning in 1997.  The 2002 policy covered liability arising from a third-party contractual relationship while the 2003 policy did not.  Two METCO employees were injured at a DuPont facility, DuPont settled their claim and sought indemnity from METCO pursuant to their contract, and Mid-Continent denied coverage based on the 2003 policy.  Materials Evaluation & Tech Corp. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., No. 12-40186 (March 18, 2013, unpublished).  METCO appealed a summary judgment for the insurer, arguing that Texas law presumes that an insurance policy renews on the same terms as the original.  The Court reviewed METCO’s authority and found it was limited to those cases’ particular fact situations — generally involving a claim of misrepresentation or an issue of mutual mistake — and affirmed.

The parties in Silver Dream LLC v. 3MC Inc. settled a copyright dispute about jewelry sales “by agreeing, among other things, that the [individual defendants] would provide affidavits disclosing details of the infringing items.”  No. 11-30968 (March 18, 2013, unpublished).  The defendants warranted the affidavits would be “true, complete, and exact” but the agreement allowed termination only if the affidavits were discovered to be false within a year.  The plaintiff took issue with the “qualified nature” of the affidavits as a reason to terminate the settlement, but the district court and Fifth Circuit stressed that the cancellation right was limited to a “false” statement. The plaintiff’s proof of alleged affirmative falsehoods in the affidavits was found to lack specificity.  The Fifth Circuit also found no abuse of discretion in denying a motion for continuance to depose the individual defendants, noting delay in the request and a lack of specificity about what the plaintiff planned to establish.

The ALI’s publication of the Restatement (Third) of Restitution in 2011 stirred interest in the important but arcane principles that define unjust enrichment.  The Fifth Circuit addressed a classic restitution situation in Boudreaux v. Transocean Deepwater, Inc., No. 12-30041 (March 14, 2013).  A seaman sought recovery for maintenance and cure after an injury; Transocean successfully established a defense based on the seaman’s failure to disclose a previous medical condition; and Transocean sought restitution of money paid earlier.  The majority rejected Transocean’s position, finding a lack of support in prior case law, and noting that the scienter element of Transocean’s defense was less demanding that a common-law fraud claim.  (“We are offered no reason to depart from precedent. There is only the change of advocates and judges, by definition irrelevant to the settling force of past jurisprudence — always prized but a treasure in matters maritime.”)  A dissent, briefly citing the Restatement, argued that one other circuit had endorsed such a claim, and that allowing the claim struck the proper policy balance.

Plaintiff purchased a shaved-ice machine in Louisiana, made by Southern Snow, a Louisiana-based business.  She moved the machine to Mississippi, injured her hand while cleaning it, and sued for damages in Mississippi.  Irvin v. Southern Snow Manufacturing, No. 11-60767 (March 13, 2013, unpublished).  The Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that she did not establish specific jurisdiction under a stream-of-commerce theory.  Even assuming that Southern Snow had minimum contacts by making a substantial percentage of its sales into neighboring Mississippi, her claim did not arise out of those contacts because “Southern Snow sold the machine to a Louisiana customer and had no knowledge that, years later, Irvin unilaterally transported it into Mississippi.”  General personal jurisdiction was not at issue.  The Court’s emphasis on the “arising out of” factor echoes its recent opinion in ITL International v. Constenla, S.A., 669 F.3d 493 (5th Cir. 2012).  The vagaries of snow cone sales produced another published Fifth Circuit opinion, on procedural due process and pleading issues, in Bowlby v. City of Aberdeen, 681 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2012).

An assignment of royalty interests for a continental shelf project had this “calculate or pay” clause:  “The overriding royalty interest assigned herein shall be calculated and paid in the same manner and subject to the same terms and conditions as the landowner’s royalty under the Lease.”  The parties disputed whether the clause simply required calculation of royalties in the same way as the government’s royalty, or allowed suspension of the assigned payments during a period when the government’s royalty right was suspended. Total E&P USA, Inc. v. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas, No. 11-30038 (revised June 20, 2013).  Applying Louisiana law, the majority found the clause ambiguous on that issue, and further reasoned that at the time of contracting, legal principles that eventually became settled and could resolve the ambiguity were not yet settled.  Noting that no cross-appeal was taken, the Court reversed a summary judgment and remanded for consideration of extrinsic evidence.   A succinct concurrence noted an additional reason for finding ambiguity based on the grammar of the clause.  A dissent took issue with the majority’s analysis of other contract provisions and applicable law, and would have affirmed summary judgment about interpretation but reversed as to reformation for mutual mistake.    Both the majority and dissent endorsed consideration of extrinsic evidence, for different reasons and purposes — a general topic which recurs with some regularity in the Court’s contract opinions.

The plaintiff in Smith Maritime v. L/B KAITLYN EYMARD sought recovery for property damage and lost profits from allegedly negligent welding on a crane on a boat.  No. 12-30378 (Jan. 3, 2013, publication ordered March 11, 2013)  The Fifth Circuit found the plaintiff’s tort claims for economic loss barred by East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, which “held that a manufacturer in a commercial relationship has no duty under either a negligence or strict products-liability theory to prevent a product from injuring itself.”  476 U.S. 858, 871 (1986).  The Court concluded that “modification of a vessel,” as distinguished from its “manufacture or repair,” was “a distinction without a difference” for purposes of East River.  The Court recognized that the errant crane had damaged living quarters that were being added to the vessel, but those quarters were not “other property” outside the East River doctrine given the wording of the parties’ Asset Purchase Agreement.  

Appellant sought review of an attachment order on the M/V OCEAN SHANGHAI.  Appellee moved to dismiss the appeal, as the parties had settled, and the boat in question had left the jurisdiction (near the coast of Latvia as of the date of this post.)    Farenco Shipping Co. v. Farenco Shipping PTE, Ltd., No. 12-31154 (March 4, 2013, unpublished).  Appellant responded by asking for vacatur of the attachment order.  Recognizing that this request raised the novel question of vacatur of an interlocutory order rather than a final judgment, the Fifth Circuit found no “exceptional circumstances” in either the parties’ settlement or the order’s potential collateral estoppel effect that would warrant its vacatur.  With respect to the settlement, the Court observed that as a general matter: “Settlements are frequently made under difficult circumstances, and often represent the least bad of several bad options; this does not make such settlements involuntary.”

The Court released a revised opinion in PPI Technologies v. Liberty Mutual, which continues to affirm the dismissal of a coverage case for inadequate allegations of property damage.  No. 12-40189 (March 1, 2013, unpublished).  The opinion is now unpublished, contains a footnote stating: “Our holding is not intended to alter Texas pleading standards,” and discusses the allegations in Twombly-like language, stating: “The allegations in the underlying lawsuits are either for economic damages, and thus not covered, or are legal conclusions, rather than factual allegations as required.”

The Deepwater Horizon rig operated under a drilling contract between BP and Transocean.  The contract had indemnity provisions between BP and Transocean for pollution claims depending on whether the contamination originated above water.  The contract also required Transocean to maintain BP as an additional insured under Transocean’s liability coverage.  In Ranger Insurance v. Transocean Offshore, the parties agreed that BP was entitled to some coverage as an additional insured, but disputed whether that coverage reached pollution liability, since the spill originated below water in BP’s area of responsibility under the indemnity clauses.  No. 12-30230 (March 1, 2013).  The Fifth Circuit reasoned: (1) Texas law begins by examining the policy, which did not restrict pollution coverage when read in light of earlier cases involving similar clauses; (2) the terms of the drilling contract did not change that conclusion, as its indemnity provisions were sufficiently “discrete” from its additional insured provision.  The opinion reviews what the Court saw as a consistent line of Fifth Circuit and Texas authority about the interplay of indemnity and “additional insured” clauses.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction about pharmaceutical development in Daniels Health Sciences v. Vascular Health Sciences.  No. 12-20599 (March 5, 2013). The opinion offers a practical road map for basic issues in trade secret litigation.  As to likelihood of success on the merits, the Court found adequate findings about damage, specific confidential information, a trade secret arising from a “compilation,” and a confidential relationship between the parties.  As to irreparable injury, the Court found sufficient findings about reputational injury that was not speculative.  While it found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s weighing of public and private interest factors, it did see a “close question” about the overall scope of the injunction in light of the conduct at issue and the defendant’s business plans and suggested that the district court “try to narrow the scope of its injunction on remand.”

The secured lender held a $39 million claim in the bankruptcy of a hotel development; a reorganization plan was approved over its objection in a “cram-down” that called for repayment of the debt over ten years at 5.5 percent interest (1.75 percent above prime on the date of confirmation).  Wells Fargo v. Texas Grand Prairie Hotel Realty LLC (No. 11-11109, March 1, 2013).  The parties agreed that this “prime-plus” approach was appropriate under the plurality in Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (2004), but disputed the proper rate.  The Court rejected a threshold challenge based upon “equitable mootness” because it reasoned that the appeal could be resolved with “fractional relief” rather than rejection of the plan.  On the merits, the Court reaffirmed that it would review the choice of a cramdown rate for clear error rather than de novo, citing In re: T-H New Orleans Limited Partnership, 116 F.3d 790 (5th Cir. 1997)).  After a thorough review of Till and subsequent cases, the court found no clear error in this prime-plus rate in this factual context.

A creditor successfully made a “credit bid” under the Bankruptcy Code for assets of a failed golf resort.  Litigation followed between the creditor and guarantors of the debt, ending with a terse summary judgment order for the guarantors: “This is not rocket science.  The Senior Loan has been PAID!!!!”  Fire Eagle LLC v. Bischoff, No. 11-51057 (Feb. 28, 2013).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed in all respects, holding: (1) the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over the dispute with the guarantors because it had a “conceivable effect” on the estate; (2) the issue of the effect of the credit bid was within core jurisdiction and did not raise a Stern v. Marshall issue; (3) core jurisdiction trumped a forum selection clause on the facts of this case; (4) a transfer into the bankruptcy court based on the first-to-file rule was proper; and (5) the creditor’s bid extinguished the debt.  On the last holding, the Court noted that the section of the Code allowing the credit bid did not provide for fair-market valuation of the assets, unlike other Code provisions.

A federal jury awarded $4 million in compensatory damages for a car wreck.  The district judge interpreted the award to include $2.2 million in noneconomic damages, and then reduced that portion of the award to $1 million because of Mississippi’s statutory cap on noneconomic damages.  Learmonth v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 09-60651 (Feb. 27, 2013, revised March 20, 2013).  The plaintiff challenged the cap as violating the Mississippi Constitution’s jury trial guarantee and separation of power provisions.  The Mississippi Supreme Court declined to answer certified questions about those issues.  The Fifth Circuit found that the cap did not violate the Mississippi Constitution.  The Court declined to consider an argument that the Erie doctrine prevented the district judge from segregating the verdict as a matter of state substantive law, finding that the point was not asserted timely and was thus waived.

The Bankruptcy Code requires that a plan receive a favorable vote from “at least one class of claims that is impaired under the plan.”  11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(10).  In Western Real Estate Equities LLC v. Village at Camp Bowie I, LP, thirty-eight unsecured trade creditors of a real estate venture voted to approve the debtor’s plan, while the secured creditor voted against it.  No. 12-10271 (Feb. 26, 2013).  The secured creditor complained that the consent was not valid because the plan “artificially” impaired the unsecured claims, paying them over a three-month period when the debtor had enough cash to pay them in full upon confirmation.  Recognizing a circuit split, the Fifth Circuit held that section 1129 “does not distinguish between discretionary and economically driven impairment.”  The Court conceded that the Code imposes an overall “good faith” requirement on the proponent of a plan, but held that the secured creditor’s argument here went too far by “shoehorning a motive inquiry and materiality requirement” into the statute without support in its text.

The appellants in Texas Medical Providers v. Lakey sought $60,000 in attorneys fees after successful defense of civil rights claims about new abortion laws.  No. 12-50291 (Feb. 26, 2013, unpublished).  The Fifth Circuit rejected a request based on 42 U.S.C. § 1988, noting: “Lack of merit does not equate to frivolity . . . .”  The Court also rejected a request based on inherent power, which relied upon statements by plaintiff’s counsel that they dismissed several challenges because the initial Fifth Circuit panel had declared all future appeals in the case would be heard by the same panel.  It stated: “The short answer to this charge is that if courts treated as a willful abuse of process every self-serving statement of counsel at the expense of a judge or judges, there would be no end to sanctions motions.”

In First American Title v. Continental Casualty, the Court analyzed a “claims-made-and-reported” policy under the Louisiana direct action statute, which allows an injured third party to directly sue the responsible party’s insurer.  No. 12-30336 (Feb. 28, 2013).   Notice was not given to the insurer during the required period.  The Court concluded that unlike an occurrence policy, where a notice requirement is intended to protect the insurer and a failure to give notice will not bar a direct action, proper notice under this policy was a condition precedent to coverage and thus barred the direct action.  A concurrence agreed with the result but advocated a narrower ground for decision.

Con-Drive contracted to provide an offshore diving system to ARV Offshore, did not perform, and was found liable for millions of dollars that it cost ARV to arrange a substitute system for an oil-drilling project.   ARV Offshore Co. v. Con-Dive LLC, No. 12-20098 (Feb. 22, 2013, unpublished).  A key damage issue was whether ARV was reimbursed by its customer for a substantial amount of the costs for the substitute.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment, noting a potential waiver issue because Con-Dive had not adequately pleaded offset as a defense, and found that the relevant testimony from an ARV representative was “non-specific and did not establish a basis for the district court to recompute the damage amount.”  The opinion is fact-specific but this observation has broader applicability in commercial damages litigation.

The insured in Mid-Continent Casualty v. Eland Energy recovered a multi-million dollar verdict against its insurer, alleging that the insurer’s efforts to unilaterally settle a claim for environmental damage after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita undermined the defense of an ongoing class action about similar claims.  No. 11-10649 (Feb. 22, 2013).   The district court granted JNOV and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.  Recognizing that “[the insured] is understandably upset,” the court rejected a common-law duty of good faith under Texas law in the handling of third-party insurance claims, dismissing as dicta or distinguishing several cases cited by the insured.   Potential claims under Louisiana law failed for  choice-of-law reasons since the claim was handled in Texas. Claims based on the Texas Insurance Code failed to establish a causal link between the alleged misconduct and the ultimate settlement terms of the class action.

Hisaw & Associates General Contractors (“HIGAC”) defaulted on contracts, requiring Liberty Mutual to pay on a surety bond.  Liberty Mutual v. Hisaw & Associates, No. 11-11012 (Feb. 20, 2013, unpublished).  After it paid, Liberty Mutual sought recovery from HIGAC’s principals; the question for appeal was whether certain transactions involving them violated a covenant about a minimum asset requirement.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion that several payments to third parties by HAGC were not “received by” the principals under the contract, and that loan repayments by HAGC to its principals were not “as a result of . . . loans [to the principals].”  The Court then reversed in favor of the principals on whether a salary payment was a “distribution.”  The Court noted that Liberty Mutual could use more precise contract language, and faulted a senior Liberty Mutual counsel for changing testimony on a relevant issue during a deposition.

A Louisiana statute requires a well operator to provide landowners “a sworn, detailed, [and] itemized statement” about drilling costs.  Brannon Properties v. Chesapeake Operating, No. 12-30306 (Feb. 21, 2013, unpublished).  The Fifth Circuit reversed a summary judgment for the operator, finding that the district court correctly concluded that its report lacked enough detail under the unambiguous language of the statute, and that the analysis should have ended there.  Id. at 5 (“The statute clearly connects the costs reported to the benefits received in exchange.  . . . [I]t must tell the unleased mineral owner what it is getting for its money.”).  The Court faulted the district court for proceeding to analysis of the statute’s purpose after reaching a conclusion that its terms were unambiguous, and also for finding an incorrect purpose inconsistent with those terms. Id. at 6-7.

The defendant in Innovation First Int’l v. Zuru Inc. removed a trade secret case about a toy robotic fish and then obtained dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds.  No. 12-10511 (Feb. 19, 2013, unpublished).  The Fifth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s conclusions that the design and production of the fish took place in China and that the bulk of witnesses and evidence were in China, and affirmed based on the analogous case of Dickson Marine v. Panalpina, Inc., 179 F.3d 331 (5th Cir. 1999).  A revised opinion slightly changed the Court’s analysis of the deference due to the plaintiff’s choice of forum.

Knoles v. Wells Fargo presented a rare encounter between an eviction and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.  No. 12-40369 (Feb. 19, 2013, unpublished).  The borrower lost a forcible entry & detainer (eviction) matter at trial in JP court and on appeal.  The borrower then sued for damages, Wells removed, and the borrower unsuccessfully tried to get a TRO about possession from the federal district court.  The district court denied relief based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine about federal review of final state court judgments.  The Fifth Circuit found that it had jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), even though the appeal was nominally from a TRO, because the relief at issue was “more in the nature of a temporary injunction in fact, though not in name.”  The court deflected an argument about mootness to hold that the order sought a federal injunction against a final state court judgment in violation of the Anti-Injunction Act.

The judgment debtors in Seven Arts Pictures v. Jonesfilm were found in civil contempt for failure to answer postjudgment discovery and other issues about enforcement of a judgment.  No. 11-31124 (Feb. 18, 2013, unpublished).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court had general personal jurisdiction over the debtors, that the debtors had waived arguments about the orders by not timely and properly objecting below, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $21 thousand in attorneys fees.  While the holdings on jurisdiction, waiver, and attorneys fees draw heavily from the specific facts of the case, the legal framework used is of broad applicability.  Footnote 7 acknowledges the unusual procedural posture of the jurisdiction issue, which had not been raised until after the notice of appeal was filed.

The case of Tekelec, Inc. v. Verint Systems, Inc. presented a contract dispute, sufficiently intricate that the Court attached a four-color chart to its opinion to illustrate the facts.  No. 11-40418 (Feb. 13, 2013).  In affirming summary judgment for the plaintiff on largely case-specific grounds, the Court reached two principal holdings: (1) an assignee has a right to enforce a payment obligation even if the contract documents do not create an express enforcement right, and (2) the contract payments were not “royalties or other patent damages” within the specific context of these parties’ dealings, or as the terms “royalty” and “reasonable royalty” are generally understood.  The first holding draws upon the general principle in Texas law that a contract construction leading to an exclusive remedy is disfavored unless that intent is clearly stated; an issue arising in contract litigation generally when potential equitable remedies are evaluated.

The borrowers in Priester v. JP Morgan Chase alleged two violations of the Texas Constitution about their home equity loan — not receiving notice of their rights 12 days before closing, and closing the loan in their home rather than the offices of a lender, attorney, or title company.  708 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2013).  A cure letter was not answered and they sued for forfeiture of interest and principal under the state constitution. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claim under the Texas 4-year “residual” limitations period, finding that was the prevailing view of courts that had examined the issue, and disagreeing with a district court that had found no limitations period.  That court reasoned that a noncompliant home equity loan was void, but the Fifth Circuit concluded that the cure provision in the Constitution instead made it voidable. Tolling doctrines did not apply since it was readily apparent where the closing occurred.  The Court also affirmed the denial of a motion for leave to amend to add new claims and non-diverse parties, reviewing the factors for both aspects of such a motion.

In long-running litigation and arbitration about alleged environmental contamination in Ecuador, Chevron obtained discovery from U.S. courts several times under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 on the basis that a “foreign or international tribunal” was involved.  Republic of Ecuador v. Connor, No. 12-20122 (Feb. 13, 2013).  Chevron then successfully resisted a § 1782 application on the ground that the arbitration was not an “international tribunal.”   The Fifth Circuit applied judicial estoppel and reversed, asking: “Why shouldn’t sauce for Chevron’s goose be sauce for the Ecuador gander as well?  The Court dismissed a jurisdictional issue by characterizing § 1782 as a grant of administrative authority.  It then rejected Chevron’s arguments that judicial estoppel could not apply to legal issues and that reliance by earlier courts on Chevron’s position had not been shown.  The opinion reminds that: “Because judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine, courts may apply it flexibly to achieve substantial justice.”  (quoting Reed v. City of Arlington, 650 F.3d 571 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc), and citing New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 752 (2001)).  (The “goose-and-gander” saying traces to an early collection of English proverbs.)

If you can’t make it to New Orleans for Fat Tuesday, 600camp suggests you try Emeril Lagasse’s excellent gumbo recipe.

A manufacturer of ship propulsion systems contracted with a ship operator, who in turn contracted with a shipbuilder.  The manufacturer and the operator had a sales contract (with an arbitration clause), and the operator and the shipbuilder had a separate contract.  VT Halter Marine v. Wartsila North America, No. 12-60051 (Feb. 8, 2013, unpublished).  The component manufacturer and shipbuilder had dealings as part of the overall relationship but did not have a direct contract.  The shipbuilder sued the manufacturer for supplying allegedly defective parts.  Its breach of warranty claim, derivative of the operator’s rights, was conceded to be arbitrable.  The tortious interference claim, however, could only be arbitrated under an estoppel theory since the shipbuilder was not a party to the manufacturer-shipbuilder contract.  The district court’s order was not clear about the basis for ordering arbitration of that claim, and the Fifth Circuit remanded for resolution of whether estoppel applied.  The Court reminded that while orders compelling arbitration are usually reviewed de novo, an order compelling a third party to arbitrate under an estoppel theory is reviewed for abuse of discretion (citing Noble Drilling v. Certex USA, 620 F.3d 469, 472 n.4 (5th Cir. 2010)).

The insurers in Pride Transportation v. Continental Casualty faced a claim arising from a truck accident that left the victim a paraplegic, with evidence that the driver falsified her logs to make deliveries on time, and with plaintiff’s counsel who had won personal injury verdicts in the same county for amounts in excess of policy limits.  No. 11-10892 (Feb. 6, 2013, unpublished).  Under these circumstances, the Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that the insurers did not incur Stowers liability under Texas law for accepting (rather then rejecting, the classic Stowers fact pattern) a settlement offer at policy limits and then withdrawing from the defense of the insured trucking company.  The Court did not address potential issues arising from the specific release in this settlement (it only named the driver, and excluded the company) except to note that potential indemnity claims between them would fall within the “insured-v.-insured” exclusion.

The insured in Kerr v. State Farm filed a claim about a stolen fishing boat, but declined to give an examination under oath (EUO).  No. 12-30332 (Feb. 5, 2013, unpublished).  State Farm claimed that refusal was a material breach that prevented recovery on the policy.  The insured said that State Farm was not prejudiced.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for State Farm, citing “affidavits from members of [State Farm’s] Special Investigative Unit stating that an EUO is an important tool in the claim investigation process and that by refusing an EUO, Kerr impeded State Farm’s ability to gather information about the claim.”  The Court declined to address an argument by State Farm that prejudice need not be shown when an EUO is refused in a first-party case.

An apartment developer sought recovery on a title insurance policy after unfortunate zoning stopped the project.  Levy Gardens Partners v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance, No. 12-30010 (Jan. 31, 2013).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the finding of coverage, concluding, among other matters, that: (1) state court rulings about zoning laws deserved deference by federal courts in later coverage litigation; (2) the state court preliminary injunction litigation about zoning had become a sufficiently “final decree” to trigger coverage; (3) delay in giving notice did not cause prejudice; and (4) the policy did not require the developer to invoke a “conditional use process.”  The Court also found, however, that the policy “unambiguously restricts liability to the difference in the value of the title with and without the zoning encumbrance,” thus limiting the insured’s recovery to roughly $650,000 rather than several million in development expenses.  In rejecting the insured’s arguments about the policy, the Court also found no prejudicial violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c) about the pleading of defensive matters.

A group of chicken farmers supplied poultry to Pilgrim’s Pride.  After the company terminated its contracts and entered bankruptcy, the farmers sued for damages under a promissory estoppel theory, alleging that its oral promises of a long-term relationship induced them to invest in chicken houses.  Clinton Growers v. Pilgrim’s Pride, No. 12-10063 (Jan. 31, 2013) at 2.  The Court affirmed summary judgment for Pilgrim’s Pride, finding that the plain language of the contract specified a contract duration (“flock-to-flock,” roughly 4-9 weeks), and foreclosed an estoppel claim about that topic.  Id. at 7.  Similarly, contract provisions about the farmers’ compensation and maintenance obligations foreclosed other attempts to recast the subject of the estoppel claim.  Id. at 8.   The Court distinguished a prior Arkansas case about a commitment by Tyson Foods to supply hogs to a hog grower, both on legal grounds and on the strength of the evidence about the alleged misrepresentations by Tyson.  Id. at 8-10.  The Texas Law Book covered the opinion shortly after its release.

In the fourth of a series of unrelated cases about mortgages and foreclosures in 2013, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims about the foreclosure on a home used as collateral for a business loan.  Water Dynamics v. HSBC Bank, No. 12-10307 (Jan. 30, 2013, unpublished).  The holdings included: (1) the foreclosure price exceeded 50 of the claimed value, and was thus not “grossly inadequate” and appellants could not state a wrongful foreclosure claim, (2) appellants’ prior breach of contract foreclosed their contract claims, and the contract modifications they alleged were barred by the Texas statute of frauds, (3) acts of the lender alleged to be inconsistent with the loan documents did not state a waiver claim, especially given the deed of trust’s anti-waiver provision, and (4) “Appellants’ allegations may demonstrate a failure to communicate between themselves and the lender, but they fall far short of . . . [showing] ‘a course of harassment that was willful, wanton, malicious, and intended to inflict mental anguish and bodily harm'” so as to state a claim for unreasonable collection efforts.

The plaintiff in Akerblom v. Ezra Holdings sued several companies for damages arising from their business dealings.  No. 12-20182 (Jan. 28, 2013, unpublished).  Federal jurisdiction turned on whether one defendant, called “Subsea” in the opinion, was improperly joined.  To determine whether “the defendant has demonstrated that there is no possibility of recovery by the plaintiff against an in-state defendant,” the Court reminded that the focus is on pleadings at the time of removal — any later pleadings or affidavits can only “amplify or clarify facts alleged in the state-court complaint.”  Id. at 7.  Applying Texas’s “fair and adequate notice” standard for proper pleading, the Court found that the fraud claim against Subsea failed to say that misrepresentation Subsea allegedly made, or who from Subsea allegedly made it.  Id. at 10.  There were also substantive issues as to whether several alleged representations were actionable.  The Court’s focus on “what” and “who” under Texas law echoes recent opinions under the federal Twombly standard.

An expert opined that a railroad crossing was unsafe and required active warning devices.  Brown v. Illinois Central Railroad, No. 11-60654 (Jan. 28, 2013).  He contended that the crossing had “‘narrow’ pavement, ‘skewed’ angle, ‘rough’ surface and ‘steep’ incline” but did not tie those conclusions to a guideline or publications, relying instead on “education and experience.”  He also admitted that visibility at the crossing was adequate under the Transportation Department’s standards.  Id. at 7.  Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s exclusion of his testimony under Daubert, calling it “transparently subjective.”  Id. at 8.

In 2011, Antill Pipeline joined a new third-party defendant to a case and obtained a continuance.  In 2012, Antill Pipeline had the case consolidated with another lawsuit it had filed, which had the effect of joining two new defendants, and obtained another continuance. In December 2012, the trial court dismissed several defendants, including the three joined by Antill Pipeline.  One week before the January 28 trial setting, Antill Pipeline moved to stay the trial and then sought mandamus two business days before the scheduled start date.  The Fifth Circuit held: “Antill’s petition, if granted, would further delay a trial that Antill has already caused to be delayed numerous times. Under these circumstances we cannot say that the district court clearly abused or usurped its judicial power . . . .”  In re Antill Pipeline Construction Co., No. 13-30102 (Jan. 25, 2013, unpublished).

The defendant in Factory Mutual Insurance v. Alon USA stipulated to liability after an explosion at a waste treatment plant.  The remaining issue was whether fair market value of the plant was the cost to replace it (roughly $6 million) or the cost of the plant’s component parts (roughly $900,000).  No. 11-11080 (Jan. 23, 2013).  Under deferential clear error and abuse-of-discretion standards of review, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusions that: (1) the plant system was unique and the cost of its components did not fairly estimate its value (distinguishing Hartford Ins. Co. v. Jiminez, 814 S.W.2d 551 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no pet.)); (2) the plaintiff’s expert “educated and interviewed . . . employees” about a key depreciation issue, and thus “did more than just repeat information gleaned from external sources” (distinguishing U.S. v. Mejia, 545 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2008)); and (3) the multiplier used to reflect installation expenses was “entirely reasonable[,]” “[g]iven the lack of useful records and resources pertaining to this particular . . . plant.”

In Ergon-West Virginia, Inc. v. Dynegy Marketing & Trade, the Fifth Circuit found that Dynegy had no duty under two natural gas supply contracts to attempt to get replacement gas after a declaration of force majeure in response to hurricane damage, affirming the district court as to one contract and reversing as to the other.  No. 11-60492 (Jan. 22, 2013).  The first contract’s force majeure clause required Dynegy to “remed[y] with all reasonable dispatch” the event.  The Court found that “reasonable” was not ambiguous but that extrinsic evidence of industry standards (favorable to Dynegy) was properly admitted to give it full meaning (contrasting its approach with the district court’s, which found the term ambiguous and admitted the testimony to resolve the ambiguity).  The second contract’s provision had language about “due diligence” by Dynegy.  The Court found the term ambiguous as both parties’ readings of it were reasonable, and then held that the district court should have credited the same evidence here as it did for the first contract.

In the third mortgage servicing opinion of 2013, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of contract, promissory estoppel, and tort claims under Texas law arising from the attempted negotiation of a loan modification during a foreclosure situation.   Milton v. U.S. Bank, No. 12-40742 (Jan. 18, 2013, unpublished); see also Gordon v. JP Morgan Chase (contract and estoppel claims under Texas law) and Pennell v. Wells Fargo Bank (negligent misrepresentation claim under Mississippi law).  The Court also found that this mortgagor-mortgagee relationship did not create an independently actionable duty of good faith, and that reliance on alleged representations that were inconsistent with the loan documents and foreclosure notice was not reasonable.  Id. at 5, 6.

The insured in Jamestown Insurance v. Reeder successfully minimized its liability with a winning appeal to the Texas Supreme Court.  No. 12-20437 (Jan. 17, 2013, unpublished).  He only gave notice of a claim at that point, however, and despite the result, ran afoul of the concept that “[o]ne of the purposes of a notice provisions . . . is to allow an insurer ‘to form an intelligent estimate of its rights and liabilities before it is obligated to pay.'”  Id. at 5 (emphasis in original).  Because the insurer could have helped influence the trial result, or negotiated a settlement at the appellate level, the “delayed tender thwarted the recognized purposes of the notice provisions” and summary judgment was affirmed for the insurer.  Id.   

City of New Orleans Employees’ Retirement System v. Hayward affirmed the dismissal, on forum non conveniens grounds, of putative shareholder derivative suits against BP arising from the Deepwater Horizon disaster.  No. 12-20019 (Jan. 16, 2013, unpublished).  Among other factors discussed, the Fifth Circuit noted and gave weight to the points that: (1) plaintiffs were “phantoms” for FNC purposes because of their attenuated interests in the case, (2) technological advances did not make geographical issues irrelevant in an FNC analysis [key witnesses and documents being located in the UK rather than Louisiana], (3) the UK had a substantial interest in applying its own, relatively new Companies Act, and (4) the BP derivative cases comprised one-third of the U.S. court’s MDL docket.

Plaintiffs obtained a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a school voucher program, alleging it violated a desegregation consent decree.  Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board, No. 12-31218 (Jan. 14, 2013, unpublished).  The Fifth Circuit found an abuse of discretion in denying a stay pending appeal.  One reason was Pullman abstention, which arises “when an unsettled area of state law . . . would render a decision on the federal issue unnecessary,” and where the Court said the defendant had a “a strong likelihood of establishing” it in light of pending state litigation about the constitutionality of the law under state law.  Another was jurisdiction under the All Writs Act, where the Court said the plaintiffs’ evidence of harm was “based merely on general financial information and speculation.”  A dissent further discussed Pullman abstention and advocated outright dismissal of the case.  The opinion appears to have been unpublished because of its expedited procedural posture, and a later panel will fully address the merits on a conventional briefing schedule.  Id. at 4 n.1

Continuing a theme begun a few days ago in Gordon v. JP Morgan Chase, the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for a servicer on a negligent misrepresentation claim under Mississippi law based on statements during loan modification discussions.  Pennell v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 12-60595 (Jan. 9, 2013, unpublished).  The Court saw the statements as unactionable promises of future conduct.  In reviewing the relevant cases, the Court distinguished two federal district court cases on their facts, while also diminishing their effect under Erie compared to controlling state court authority.

The district court dismissed a case about the misappropriation of trust assets under the “probate exception” to federal diversity jurisdiction.  Curtis v. Brunsting, No. 12-20164 (Jan. 9, 2013) (applying Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006)).  The Fifth Circuit stated that “Marshall requires a two-step inquiry into (1) whether the property in dispute is estate property within the custody of the probate court and (2) whether the plaintiff’s claims would require the federal court to assume in rem jurisdiction over that property.”  Id. at 5.  Finding no evidence that this inter vivos trust was, or even could be, subject to Teas probate administration, the Court reversed and remanded.

The sales agreement for two tugboats provided for $250,000 in liquidated damages if the boat was used in violation of a noncompetition provision.  International Marine LLC v. Delta Towing LLC, No. 12-30280 (Jan. 8, 2013).  The Fifth Circuit applied federal admiralty law, using section 356 of the Second Restatement of Contracts as the guide, and placing the burden on the party seeking to invalidate the provision as a penalty. The Court quickly concluded that the second factor of that section — difficulty in proving damages — was established by evidence about the nature of the boat charter business to which the clause applied.  Id. at 9.  The Court also found that the first factor — reasonableness of the estimated anticipated loss — was satisfied by evidence about the range of expected fees and contract duration.  Id. at 9-10.  (citing Farmers Exp. Co. v. M/V Georgis Prois, 799 F.2d 159 (5th Cir. 1986)).  The clause was thus enforceable.

Several aspects of insurance coverage for hurricane damage to a shopping center were addressed in GBP Partners v. Maryland Casualty, No. 11-20912 (Jan. 4, 2013, unpublished).  The Fifth Circuit concluded that the insured: (1) did not establish a “complete interruption” of business activity to trigger coverage for lost income, (2) raised a fact issue as to whether rent abatements were necessary to prevent possible closure of the entire center, (3) did not distinguish repair fees necessary to avoid suspension of operations from other management fees, (4) the insured was responsible for various delays in replacing a damaged roof, and (5) did not allocate window damage between covered and non-covered causes.   The Court also found that a summary judgment affiant did not create an impermissible conflict with earlier deposition testimony that described the effect of the storm on business operations.  Id. at 6-7 & n.7.

The Fifth Circuit’s 2012 business litigation opinions suggest these five tips for the New Year:

1.  Plead key details.   While not removing the limits on Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), the Court has reminded twice of the importance of “what,” “how,” and “when” in pleading under Twombly and Iqbal.  It also reversed a Rule 12 dismissal in a contract case because the plaintiff adequately pleaded an industry custom about the relevant terms.

2.  Plead reasonably.  The Federal Circuit, applying Fifth Circuit law, reversed the denial of Rule 11 sanctions for what it saw as an objectively unreasonable construction of a patent.

3.  Stretch the long arm carefully.  Applying recent Supreme Court authority, the Fifth Circuit found no personal jurisdiction over cases about an “off-the-shelf” software contract, a distributorship arrangement based outside the forum state, and an alleged corporate “alter ego” situation.

4.  Watch the eight corners.   During 2012, the Court reversed once, and then again, to reject exceptions to Texas’s “eight corners” rule about insurance coverage, but also reversed to allow a mistake claim to proceed despite that rule.

5.  Don’t count on mandamus.  After granting mandamus in a high-profile venue dispute in 2008, the Court has since declined to grant the writ as to the wrongful denial of a remand motion and an alleged error about a forum selection clause.