« July 15, 2007 - July 21, 2007 | Main | August 19, 2007 - August 25, 2007 »

August 18, 2007

Maine Supreme Court Issues Interesting Expressio Unius

In Foremost Ins. v. Levesque, 926 A.2d 1185 (Me. 2007), the court split on whether, if the insurer brought a DJ action seeking an order that insurer did not have a duty to indemnify (as opposed to defend) and the insured prevailed, the insurer had to pay the insured's attorneys' fees. A Maine statute states that when there is a declaratory judgment action “to determine an insurer’s contractual duty to defend an insured under an insurance policy, if the insured prevails in such action, the insurer shall pay court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.” 24-A M.R.S. § 2436-B(2) (2006). Thus, it only applied to the duty to defend, not the duty to indemnify.

The court split. In doing so, it collected and discussed cases from other jurisdictions analyzing the issue. The majority held that the insured could collect attorneys fees; the dissent, however, relied on the fact that by including "duty to defend" the statute by implication excluded "duty to indemnify."

It's an interesting issue, since one wonders if the purpose of the statute under the dissent's reasoning could easily be stripped away by smart-pleading insurance companies. Also, the majority never quite rationalized its result with the statute's language.

August 18, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 16, 2007

Recent New Cases of First Impression

Emmert Indus. Corp. v. Artisan Assocs., Inc., __ F.3d __, 2007 WL 2296773 (9th Cir. Aug. 13, 2007) (49 U.S.C. § 14705(a) statute of limitations)

Price v. Thomas Built Buses, Inc., __ S.W.3d __, 2007 WL 1894215 (Ark. June 28, 2007) (whether Arkansas statute allowing school buses to be made without seat belts precluded a jury from finding liability for not including them)

Wis. Dept. of Rev. v. River City Refuse Removal, Inc., 729 N.W.2d 396 (Wis. March 8, 2007) (Wisconsin tax statute)

August 16, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 15, 2007

Entire article on CAFA Appellate Deadline Published

A previous winner for Worst Statute in the World now has an entire article devoted to it: Adam N. Steinman, "Less" is "More"? Textualism, Intentionalism, and a Better Solution to the Class Action Fairness Act's Appellate Deadline Riddle, 92 Iowa L. Rev. 1183 (2007). Astute readers will recall that, the way the statute is written, you have to wait 30 days to appeal certain rulings, but then have forever to do so -- obviously not what they meant, but it creates a lucious riddle for this author. I couldn't find the piece on the journal's site

Sorry for the hiatus.

August 15, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack