Articles Posted in Strict Liability

Published on: | By

In 2008, three men were passengers on a chartered fishing boat that collided with a utility boat. The fishing boat’s insurance company was St. Paul Fire and the utility boat’s insurance company was Steadfast. Harvest Oil owned the utility boat. Normally, the insurance companies would fight about who was at fault and may eventually make it to court. However, this case was more complicated because the men in the fishing boat did not own the boat, and the owner of the utility boat filed for bankruptcy shortly after the passengers drug them into the lawsuit as a third party. The issue of waiver of a coverage defense while the insured is in a bankruptcy proceeding is one that has not been considered in Louisiana previously.

Harvest filed for bankruptcy in 2009 and the passengers in the accident filed in its bankruptcy proceeding as a creditor for “an amount to be determined.” Where an insured filed for bankruptcy, it was very smart of the injured party to file as a creditor because that helps protect their interest if the insurance company refuses to pay Harvest’s liability coverage.

When an individual or company files for bankruptcy, federal law provides an automatic stay on any other litigation proceedings. That means that all other litigation involving the debtor must be paused until the bankruptcy proceeding is closed. Therefore, Harvest dropped out of the insurance lawsuit, and the passengers had to sue the insurance company alone.

As a result, when Steadfast asserted the watercraft exclusion, that meant that the passengers could no longer sue the insurance company and had to sue the insured himself. Since the insured was in bankruptcy proceedings, there was not only a delay in the litigation because of the stay, but there was also a very real chance that the injured parties may not get any money.

When an individual goes into a bankruptcy proceeding, they have to pay off their creditors in a certain order. First, the secured creditors will receive payment. A secured creditor has something that they use as collateral for the loan or credit that they extended to the debtor. For example, if you have an automotive loan, your car is likely your collateral or security. If you file bankruptcy and cannot pay for your car loan, then, with a few exceptions, they will likely come take your car. When a creditor is unsecured, however, they cannot take anything and must share with all of your other unsecured creditors. That likely means that they will not get paid the entire debt that they are owed, and will usually only receive a small portion of their money back.

A judgment is an unsecured debt, and because the passengers filed so late, they are likely at the back end of the line of creditors in the bankruptcy proceeding. Louisiana law allows those with liability coverage to sue the insurer directly when the insured has been removed for bankruptcy proceedings under the Louisiana Direct Action statute. So, if the insurance company would have covered the accident, then the insurance company would have paid them directly instead of going through the insured. This is because liability coverage in Louisiana is not the property of the insured; it is the property of whoever the injured party was. Other types of insurance coverage, such as collision, for example, would still be the property of the insured and would be included in the bankruptcy proceedings. Where the insurance coverage would be a property of the estate, then the stay that applies to the insured would also apply to the insurer. However, that is not the case here because the liability coverage is not property of the insured.

Once the court decided the reservation of rights and waiver issues, then it questioned how those decisions were affect the bankruptcy proceeding. The court considered claim and issue preclusion. Preclusion in civil cases is a lot like the rule against double jeopardy in criminal cases; the idea is that you cannot keep taking someone back to court for the same offenses over and over again.

Claim preclusion does not allow the same parties or parities that are in privity, or connected in some way, to try the same claim or cause of action after a court of competent jurisdiction has rendered a final verdict. If the claim was litigated to completion, then it cannot be litigated again. It is sometimes difficult to determine if parties are in privity, however. Usually these relationships are based on a connection so strong that liability of one would normally be the liability of another such as in employee and employer relationships. An insurance company sued under the Louisiana Direct Action statute could be an example, but only if the insured’s and the insurer’s interests are aligned. In this case, because the insurer is asserting a coverage defense, then their interests are not aligned and they are not in privity. Therefore, claim preclusion does not affect the bankruptcy suit.

Issue preclusion is virtually the same as claim preclusion except that it applies to only one issue in the lawsuit instead of the entire case. The issue still needs to be completely decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, however. It also requires that the parties be the same, but there is no privity exception. Since the parties will not be the same in the bankruptcy proceeding, issue preclusion has no effect on the bankruptcy proceeding either.

The law overlaps occasionally and can result in some confusing and interesting results. You need an experienced attorney to help you navigate the legal waters.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

In 2008, three men were passengers on a chartered fishing boat that collided with a utility boat. The fishing boat’s insurance company was St. Paul Fire and the utility boat’s insurance company was Steadfast. Harvest Oil owned the utility boat. Normally, the insurance companies would fight about who was at fault and may eventually make it to court. However, this case was more complicated because the men in the fishing boat did not own the boat, and the owner of the utility boat filed for bankruptcy shortly after the passengers drug them into the lawsuit as a third party. The issue of waiver of a coverage defense while the insured is in a bankruptcy proceeding is one that has not been considered in Louisiana previously.

Harvest received a letter from their insurance company shortly the parties filed suit. The letter explained that the insurance company was “reserving their rights,” but it was signed by Zurich American Insurance Company, Harvest’s automotive insurance provider. Zurich North America owned both Steadfast and Zurich American Insurance Company, and Harvest had insurance policies with both of these carriers. Despite the fact that Zurich American Insurance Company signed the letter, the Steadfast policy was mentioned by name and policy number in the letter. In fact, the letter quoted a portion of the Steadfast policy that excluded watercrafts such as the one that was involved in the accident in 2008. The letter explained that the insurance company would be investigating the case, but reserved all of its rights in action. Essentially, when an insurance company reserves its rights, it means that wants the option of asserting a defense that may not be in the insured interests.

When the passengers sued the insurance company their initial answer did not mention that Steadfast had a watercraft exclusion. When the passengers asked to review the relevant insurance policies, Steadfast gave them copies of their standard primary and umbrella policies. Three separate insurance claims agents thought that Harvest’s claim would be covered because they overlooked the watercraft exclusion. Finally, in 2011, an insurance adjustor finally noticed the exclusion. As a result, Steadfast changed their defenses and asserted that they would not cover Harvest’s claim because of the watercraft exclusion. Steadfast also, understandably, changed their attorneys shortly after this discovery.

The passengers argued that Steadfast could not assert this defense so late in the litigation. They argued that Steadfast waived their coverage defense by proceeding with the lawsuit, and even if they did not waive the defense, they did not assert that right to begin with. The court in this case explained that the insurance company needed to have reserved their right to use this defense at the beginning of the litigation, so they analyzed the initial letter that Harvest received at the beginning of the lawsuit.

The passengers argued that Steadfast did not reserve its rights through the letter because the letter was very confusing. It was signed by another insurance company and confused the insured. The insured thought that Zurich, their automotive insurance company, was asserting its rights; not that Steadfast was asserting its rights. In addition, the letter only referred to investigation and did not mention anything relating to a defense.

Generally, if the insurance company assumes a defense of the insured without first reserving its rights, that constitutes a waiver. However, the court found that Steadfast did reserve its rights in the letter sent to Harvest. The court points out that the letter specifically referred to the policy with Steadfast and quotes language from it. The fact that the insured did not read the letter carefully, the court concluded, should not inhibit Steadfast from reserving its rights. Since Louisiana does not require technical language to reserve its rights to a defense, the insurance company was not required to describe which rights in particular they were reserving.

However, the insurance company can still waive their rights even where they have reserved their rights. The court pointed out that under Louisiana law, an insurance company can waive any provision of an insurance contract, even if that waiver has the effect of extending coverage. Waiver requires misleading conduct on the part of the insurer and a prejudice to the insured.

Louisiana law requires that the insurance company induce their insured to belief that they were waiving their rights. In this case, although Steadfast mistakenly thought that Harvest was covered, they did not communicate that mistake to Harvest. Steadfast did not act with the intention of misleading their insured; they acted because of a mistake regarding coverage, so Steadfast did not deliberately mislead Harvest.

Waiver also requires that the insured be harmed because of the misleading conduct. Due to the bankruptcy proceedings, Harvest was not harmed by the delay and confusion because they were not actually a party in the case involving the passengers. The court explained that they could not have been harmed in a case where they were not a party.

As a result, the court concluded that Steadfast asserted and reserved their rights properly and did not waive their coverage defense. But, how does that affect the bankruptcy proceeding? Look for part two to find out.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

The case of American Zurich Insurance v. Caterpillar arose from a truck fire that took place in Natchitoches Parish on April 7, 2010. American Zurich insured the truck and Caterpillar manufactured the truck’s engine. American Zurich opened up a loss file on the truck the day of the fire. American Zurich paid out almost $77,000 dollars to the insured. On April 26, 2010, Zurich was informed of a possible defect in the engine by an inspection agency they hired to look into the claim. A year later, on April 26, 2011 American Zurich filed suit against Caterpillar in West Baton Rouge Parish seeking reimbursement for the costs they incurred, but the case was subsequently moved to Natchitoches Parish in June 2011. On November 10, 2011, the trial court granted Caterpillar’s peremptory exception of prescription and their motion for summary judgment and dismissed American Zurich’s claims. American Zurich appealed the trial court’s decision and the case made its way to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal. While you read the rest of this case summary keep the dates mentioned above in mind.

So why does keeping these dates straight in our minds matter, and what is a peremptory exception of prescription? Actions brought under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, or LPLA, must be filed within one year “from the day injury or damage is sustained.” This one year time period is known as a prescriptive period. A peremptory exception of prescription is a defense motion arguing that the plaintiff has no case because they failed to file their case in the required prescriptive period of time. So one of the major issues in this case became on what date did that prescriptive period begin? Caterpillar claimed it started on April 7, 2010, the day of the fire. American Zurich claimed it began on April 26, 2010, which was the day their investigators told them about the engine defect.

The court noted that “prescription begins to run when the defect manifests itself, not on the date the underlying cause of the defect is found.” In other words, the court said that the one year prescriptive period began on the day of the fire, April 7, 2010. The court points out that American Zurich knew about the fire the day it occurred, and therefore, American Zurich had no basis for arguing that the prescriptive date should have started on April 26, 2010. Thus the court holds that American Zurich did not file their case within the one year prescriptive period required under the LPLA which ran out on April 7, 2011.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

Injuries can happen anywhere but do not always lead to successful legal suits. Larry Modicue was directed by Rose Kennedy, an insurance agent for State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. in West Monroe, Louisiana, to have a seat in her office, which resulted in the chair collapsing. Modicue is a 404-pound man who has sat in this same chair with no prior injuries or incidents but suffered a shoulder injury in the fall, requiring medical assistance.

Modicue sought relief for his injuries and brought suit against Kennedy and State Farm. Kennedy and State Farm’s, in turn, filed a motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a maneuver used by one party to have the court make a decision on part or the whole dispute without going to trial. For a motion for summary judgment to be granted there must be no disputes on material fact, showing that one party is entitled to judgment. The summary judgment procedure is designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and is favored by the courts and construed to accomplish these ends. In this case, Kennedy and State Farm’s motion for summary judgment was granted due to the fact that the court found no genuine issue of material fact.

Modicue appealed this decision arguing that the court erred in granting summary judgment. His reasoning was that 1) a Louisiana business owner has a duty to provide seating which is adequate for the general public, and 2) the facts of the case permit the application of res ipsa loquitor.

The court disagreed with Modicue. According to the Louisiana C.C. art. 2317.1, an owner is only responsible for damage of the object is if 1) he knew about a ruin, vice, or defect which caused the damage, or 2) he should have known of the ruin, vice, or defect, 3) the damage could have been prevented if he exercised reasonable care, and 4) that he failed to exercise reasonable care.

Modicue failed to show that there was prior knowledge on the part of Kennedy and State Farm of the chair being defected. There was also no reasonable belief that the chair was defected and could not support Modicue because he had sat in the same chair before without any injury or incident. The chair also did not contain any warning about the capacity at which it could hold.

Res ipsa loquitor, a rule of circumstantial evidence that applies when the facts suggest that the negligence of the defendant is the most plausible explanation of the injury, did not apply either. According to Harper v. Advantage Gaming, it is applicable when 1) the circumstances of the accident are so unusual that, in the absence of other evidence, there is an inference of negligence by defendant; 2) defendant had exclusive control over the thing causing injury; and, 3) the only reasonable conclusion is that defendant’s breach of duty caused the accident.

The original ruling in favor of Rose Kennedy and State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. was upheld due to Modicue’s failure to produce sufficient evidence showing the negligence of Kennedy and State Farm.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

A case appealed from the Parish of Claiborne, arising from an incident in Homer, Louisiana, raises a couple of important issues regarding lawsuits against insurance providers.

In this case, the plaintiff was a passenger in a car that met the defendant, driving her own car, at an intersection. The plaintiff and the defendant were already at odds with each other, and the plaintiff claimed in trial that the defendant had tried earlier that day to strike the plaintiff with her car. Nonetheless, the plaintiff got out of the passenger side and walked to the side of the defendant’s car, where the plaintiff struck or attempted to strike the defendant with her hands. As the plaintiff returned to her own car, the defendant performed a U-turn, drove back towards the plaintiff and struck her with the vehicle, causing the plaintiff’s injuries.

The plaintiff sued the defendant’s liability insurer, as well as the agency providing underinsured motorist (UM) coverage for the vehicle in which the plaintiff was a passenger. An appeal of the first trial led to a retrial. In the retrial, the court held in favor of the defendant insurance companies, and the plaintiff appealed.

The first issue regards lawsuits against automobile insurance companies in general. The insurance policy itself is essential to establishing a case against an insurance provider. A plaintiff against an insurance company must enter the insurance policy into the record in order to prevail. As this case demonstrates, record of a court acknowledging an insurance policy and discussing the relevant parts of it in an earlier trial can sometimes serve as record of the policy in a subsequent trial.

In this case, the trial court held that the plaintiff had not entered the insurance policies into the record and so could not prove that the insurers were responsible for any payments. The appellate court decided that the defendant’s pleadings and stipulations, as well as records from the earlier trial and appeal served to prove the existence and contents of the insurance policies, even though the plaintiff did not re-enter the insurance policies during the second trial.

The second issue regards lawsuits to recover damages based on UM clauses. Uninsured motorist insurance, or underinsured motorist insurance, typically provides coverage to the policy-holder in the event that he is injured in an accident caused by a motorist with no insurance, or with insurance that does not cover all of the damage done.

Typically an “accident” must occur for the recovery of UM insurance benefits. When evaluating claims for UM insurance, courts examine incidents from the viewpoint of the injured party. If a vehicular assault is unprovoked or unexpected from the injured party’s perspective then it is “accidental” even if the aggressor acted intentionally.

In this case, the court found that the plaintiff provoked the incident when she struck or attempted to strike the defendant with her hands, so her injuries were not “accidental” and the provider of UM insurance was not liable.

Procedural details such as the need to file certain documents in order to make cases can destroy otherwise valid lawsuits. Further, the exact meaning and relevance of language in complex insurance contracts may be difficult to understand unless one knows how courts have interpreted the issues.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

In its earlier opinion, the Court of Appeals held that Lawrence E. Metz’s 2003 Chevrolet Avalanche was in fact covered by the Safeway Insurance Company during an accident that happened in Bossier City, Louisiana. The Court of Appeals looked to the language of the policy that stated “when two or more automobiles are insured hereunder, the terms of the policy shall apply separately to each” to conclude that the paying of premiums applied separately to each of Metz’s vehicles.

Although Metz had not paid the additional premium on his second vehicle, he had paid for coverage on his Avalanche in full prior to the accident. Therefore, the Court of Appeals initially held that Safeway was still responsible for the damages Metz incurred in the accident, although they had canceled the policy prior. It seems, however, that the Court of Appeals overlooked some relevant language within Safeway’s Insurance Policy, which led them to grant a rehearing for the case. The Court of Appeals ultimately reversed their initial holding in favor of Safeway Insurance Company.

In the rehearing, the Court looked carefully at what exactly “when two or more automobiles are insured hereunder (emphasis added), the terms of the policy shall apply separately to each” referred to. That statement was under the following heading: “4. Two or More Automobiles—Parts I, III, and IV.” Parts I, III, and IV of the insurance policy were about “Liability, Expenses for Medical Services, and Physical Damage” respectively. Parts I, III, and IV of Safeway’s insurance policy had nothing to do with the payment of premiums.

On rehearing, this court decided that Safeway’s terms applied separately to each vehicle only with regards to “liability, expenses for medical services, and physical damage” and not with regards to the payment of premiums. Therefore, since Metz did not pay the premium on his additional vehicle, his entire policy had been effectively canceled two days prior to his accident, leaving him with no coverage.

Interpreting language is a complex matter that even courts get wrong. That is why it is crucial to get representation from lawyers who are skilled at language interpretation and application, and who will get it right the first time around.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

The method by which a contract’s ambiguous language is interpreted can decide who wins the case. A slight difference in statutory interpretation can acquit or convict a person charged with a serious felony or a petty misdemeanor. There are two main theories of interpretation: textualism and purposivism. Proponents of the textualism theory, or textualists, look to the precise language of the code, statute, contract, etc., in order to apply it to the facts. Pure textualists look solely to the four corners of the
document to aid them in interpretation.

Proponents of the purposivism theory, or purposivists, look to understand the legislative history and intent of the parties who drafted the language, to decide how to apply the law. Purposivists believe that this method of interpretation is the most effective way to ensure that the law is applied the way the lawmakers (legislative branch) would have wanted it. Usually, however, interpretation of language comes about through utilizing a combination of texualist and purposivist approaches.

In this case, the proper application of an insurance contract hinges on the language of the contract drafted by Safeway Insurance Company. Safeway issued a policy of automobile liability insurance to Lawrence E. Metz effective November 16, 2008, through May 16, 2009, which only listed his 2003 Chevrolet Avalanche as an insured vehicle. Although Metz paid in full for his policy covering auto insurance for his Avalanche, he attempted to add another vehicle, his 2008 Chevrolet Uplander, on the
same day he made his final payment for the Avalanche.

In response, Safeway sent a bill to Metz for the additional premium owed for coverage on the additional vehicle, which Metz denies ever receiving. After issuing a notice of cancellation to Metz when Safeway did not receive the additional premium, Safeway canceled Metz’s entire policy ten days after.

Just two days after Safeway had canceled Metz’s policy, Metz got into an accident in Bossier City, Louisiana, while driving his Avalanche. The question in this case: is Safeway responsible for covering Metz’s payments from the accident? Safeway argues that since Metz did not pay the additional premium for the Uplander, the entire policy was canceled, which meant Safeway was no longer Metz’s automobile insurance company. Metz argues that he had paid in full to have his Avalanche (the vehicle involved in the accident) covered, so Safeway should therefore cover the damages.

The Court of Appeals states that ambiguous policy provisions are generally construed against the insurer in favor of coverage. The court looks to a paragraph under the “CONDITIONS” portion of the Safeway policy to conclude that the terms of the policy apply separately to each of Metz’s vehicles. The policy states “when two or more automobiles are insured hereunder, the terms of the policy shall apply separately to each.” Therefore, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court was not manifestly erroneous in finding there was coverage on Metz’s Avalanche at the time of the accident.

There is, however, a dissent, arguing that when it comes to the paying of premiums, the terms of the Safeway policy does not apply separately to each vehicle. The dissenter argues that parsing of the premium coverage is “logically untenable.” His argument is further explored in the rehearing given to reconsider the majority opinion in this case, which is detailed in the next entry.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

Years after Hurricane Rita, which hit in September 2005, those who have had their homes damaged are still dealing with cleaning up the wreckage and rebuilding. Litigation involving insurance companies is still particularly prominent. One couple from Lake Charles, Louisiana knows about this type of litigation all too well.

The couple had homeowners insurance through State Farm and made a claim for damage to their home as result of the storm. State Farm paid them for the damages and they began to rebuild. However, after the claims were settled, the couple found that significant damage to the home’s rafters in the attic. An adjuster came right over and paid the couple for damage to three windows. The rafters, on the other hand, were a different question. There was a separation between the center beam and the rafters that connected to the center beam to support the roof; the center beam was essential to the strength and integrity of the home’s overall structure. State Farm explained that the couple needed to have the opinion of an engineer to support their claim for damage to the rafters.

In Louisiana, like many other states, lay people are generally not allowed to offer their opinions at trial. Instead, they are supposed to supply facts and the jury or judge is supposed to provide their opinion, resulting in the outcome of the trial. The witness should not substitute their opinion for that of the factfinder. However, if the witness is certified as an expert in a particular area, then they can give their opinion to the court.

Testimony of expert witnesses is particularly useful in highly technical trials. For example, if an individual is suing for a personal injury, it may be helpful to have a doctor come in to explain the injury and state how he or she thinks the plaintiff acquired the injury. If you can only acquire the injury a certain way, then the fact finder should know that information so they can provide an accurate final verdict.

In this case, the couple had their contractor come in to testify. Their contractor built the home and testified as to his opinion of how the damage occurred. He was a valuable witness because he could tell the judge that when he built the home, the center beam and rafters were not separated as they are now. He explained that if they were separated like that, then the house would not have been up to code and the couple could not have lived there.

The couple also employed an engineer to testify at the trial regarding the cause of the split in the rafters. The engineer looked at the house after the storm and, using his experience, explained that only extremely high winds could have created that kind of damage in the time between when the house was built and shortly after Hurricane Rita hit. He also stated that the home’s structure would have continued to get worse if the attic frame was not properly restored.

State Farm argued that the contractor was not an appropriate expert because he was not trained to be an expert regarding causation of the movement in the rafters. Because he was not an engineer, he could not compute the effect of the wind speed on the house nearly as well as an engineer could. However, State Farm did not like the engineer that the couple used either. In fact, they argued, the contractor did not even use the correct wind speed when he calculated the effect of the wind, so his testimony should be entirely discredited.

The court determined that both the contractor’s and the engineer’s testimony would remain in evidence. First, it concluded that the contractor was not retained as an expert for the trial, so he did not need to be qualified as an expert. Instead, he spoke about the before and after affects regarding the rafters. Louisiana law allows witnesses who are not experts to testify about their inferences and opinions if they are “rationally based upon the perception of the witness and helpful to a clear understanding of [the] testimony or determination of the fact at issue.” In addition, the court kept the engineer’s testimony because they determined that even though he had used the incorrect wind speed in his calculations, the correct wind speed would not have changed the outcome of his opinion.

Witnesses can make or break a case, and expert witnesses are particularly important to explain technical concepts that the average person may not understand. Those technical concepts are usually essential to the case.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

Both trial and appellate courts found Janssen Pharmaceutica liable for damages under the Louisiana’s Medical Assistance Programs Integrity Law (MAPIL). The issue was whether the Attorney General could bring this action without alleging actual damages, as MAPIL requires. The courts considered the legislative intent behind the law to determine that Janssen was still liable.

The Attorney General of Louisiana filed suit against Janssen Pharmaceutica for violating the MAPIL, which prohibits people from presenting false or fraudulent claims or misrepresentations to the state medical assistance program funds. The jury concluded that Janssen had violated the law over 35,000 times, resulting in a fee of over $257 million.

The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision. It would only be able to overturn the trial court if it found the trial court had abused its discretion. In other words, if the trial court’s interpretation of the statute was not reasonable, the appellate court could reverse it. However, this is a very high standard. Previous Louisiana case law required the court to read the relevant subsection of the statute in the context of the remainder of the MAPIL legislation, and the appellate court found that the trial court had done this, and its interpretation was reasonable. Thus, it was reasonable to interpret the statute to mean that if the Attorney General could prove false, misleading, deceitful statements, Janssen would be liable for civil penalties.

Continue reading

Published on: | By

The “New York Convention” (9 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.) gives a U.S. court the ability to enforce a foreign arbitration award if there is personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Personal jurisdiction is when the defendant can expect to appear in a foreign country’s court because the defendant has minimum contacts with the country. First Inv. Corp. v. Fujian Mawei Shipbuilding, Ltd. reaffirms that personal jurisdiction is necessary when a plaintiff is trying to confirm an arbitration award.

In First Inv. Corp., a Marshall Islands corporation and Chinese shipbuilding company entered into a contract that had an arbitration clause. The Marshall Islands is a presidential republic of the United States. The U.S. provides defense, funding, social services, and its currency for use to the republic. The arbitration clause required all disputes to be resolved in neutral territory under the London Maritime Arbitrators Association rules. The English arbitration panel found for the Marshall Islands corporation, but China refused to enforce the award against the defendant because not all the arbitrators on the panel had seen the final draft of the decision. Instead of resolving the matter in either the country of arbitration or the defendant’s country, First Inv. Corp. commenced action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The case eventually appeared before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that the U.S. lacks personal jurisdiction over a Chinese shipbuilding company that has no contacts with the U.S. The Chinese company did not distribute products, conduct any transactions, or maintain property on American soil. However, the Marshall Islands plaintiff argued that since the defendant did not have any contacts with the U.S., the defendant should not be afforded the right of due process stemming from personal jurisdiction. The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids states from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process.” In the district court trial, the plaintiff argued that as a corporation controlled by the Chinese government, the defendant was not entitled to due process. Ultimately, the trial court rejected the plaintiff’s argument because it would undermine the “minimum contacts” test set by the U.S. Supreme Court because a confirmation of the award would suggest that a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant with no contacts in the U.S. The Fifth Circuit followed up by citing cases affirming due process protection for foreign corporations.

The plaintiff then argued that a confirmation of the arbitration would not affect the defendant’s “substantive rights” or fundamental protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Circuit disagreed because a confirmation of the arbitration award would allow the plaintiff to enforce the judgment in Britain.

First Inv. Corp. shows how significant it is for parties to understand U.S. legal procedures when seeking to enforce foreign arbitration awards.

Continue reading

Contact Information
1140 St Charles Ave
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 521-6000Fax: (504) 617-6300

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Berniard Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design