Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff's lawsuit arose from defendant's refusal to pay some or all of plaintiff's claims for reimbursement for medical-device procurement and financing services provided in connection with over 2,000 patients insured under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., plans administered by defendant. Plaintiff subsequently appealed a summary judgment for defendant. At issue was whether plaintiff's state-law claims of promissory estoppel, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the Texas Insurance Code, 541.051(A) & (B) and 541.061(1) & (2), were preempted by ERISA. The court reversed with respect to plaintiff's promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, and Texas Insurance Code claims because these claims were premised on allegations and evidence that plaintiff provided the services in reliance on defendant's representations that it would pay reasonable charges for plaintiff's services. The court affirmed with respect to plaintiff's quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims because these claims depended on plaintiff's assertion that without its services the patients' ERISA plans would have obligated defendant to reimburse a different provider for the same services.

This case arose when plaintiff and defendant created a joint venture where plaintiff loaned the joint venture $75,000,000 under a Loan Agreement which contained an arbitration clause. Defendant did not sign the Loan Agreement individually but did sign a third-party guarantee (Limited Guarantee) for the loan on the same day the Loan Agreement was executed. Plaintiff subsequently sued defendant pursuant to the Limited Guarantee and defendant sought arbitration. The district court denied a motion to compel arbitration because defendant was not a party to any Loan Document. Defendant appealed and the district court denied his motion for a stay pending appeal. Defendant appealed the denial of the stay and plaintiff moved for summary affirmance of the denial of the motion to compel. The court held that there was no automatic stay and that under the circumstances of the case, defendant was not entitled to a stay. Therefore, the motion for summary affirmance was carried with the case.

Defendant appealed a jury verdict awarding damages to its former employee for breach of a stock options contract. Defendant argued that the jury instruction misstated the governing Korean law, that the jury's verdict relied on legally insupportable evidence, and that the district court applied the wrong law when determining attorney's fees. The court held that defendant failed to prove that the district court abused its discretion in excluding a requirement of coercion or intimidation from the jury instructions. Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial on damages. Finally, the award of attorney's fees would be permitted under either Texas or Korean law. Therefore, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

In the Chapter 13 case of appellees, Countrywide sought the recovery of attorney's fees incurred in connection with the bankruptcy as well as a determination that compliance with Federal Bankruptcy Procedure 2016 was not necessary for the recovery of such fees. The bankruptcy court held that Countrywide was not entitled to recover its attorney's fees and determined that there was no justiciable issue to resolve regarding the applicability of Bankruptcy Rule 2016 because Countrywide had already complied with the rule. The district court affirmed. The court held that the bankruptcy court and district court misconstrued the provision of the contract governing the availability of attorney's fees and that Countrywide was entitled to recover the fees sought in its Fee Application. Like the bankruptcy and district courts, however, the court declined to address whether Bankruptcy Rule 2016 applied. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

This appeal required the court to determine what effect, if any, a retiree benefits-related provision included in an asset purchase agreement had on the acquiring company's retiree benefits plans governed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1000 et seq. The court held that the provision constituted a valid plan amendment. Moreover, the court held that the provision was assumed, not rejected, in bankruptcy. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.

This case arose when Cat Tech sought indemnification from its insurers after Cat Tech damaged several components of a hyrotreating reactor owned by Ergon Refining, Inc. and arbitrators entered an award against Cat Tech for the damage. Insurers subsequently denied the claim, contending, inter alia, that the "your work" exclusion found in the policies precluded coverage for damage to the reactor. The district court found that insurers had no duty to indemnify Cat Tech. The court held that the information contained in the arbitration award was insufficient to properly apply the "your work" exclusion. As such, the court concluded that the district court erred when it relied on the award in granting insurer's summary judgment motion. On remand, the district court should conduct any additional fact-finding necessary to determine whether the damage suffered by Ergon's reactor was limited only to those components upon which Cat Tech worked, or instead included other components unrelated to Cat Tech's operations. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

This litigation arose out of a contract between the parties in which PDNED agreed to transfer its rights to LHC to purchase shopping mall property from a third party. LHC alleged that, based on representations made by PDNED, LHC expected to lease the property to Lowe's Home Improvement. PDNED subsequently appealed a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of LHC. As a preliminary matter, the court held that it need not resolve the choice-of-law question where the parties agreed that, with a few exceptions, no material differences existed between New Hampshire and Texas law with regard to the case and the court's conclusions would be the same under either state's law. The court held that the purchase and sale agreement (P&S Agreement) precluded LHC's promissory estoppel claim because the agreement itself controlled the extent of PDNED's binding promises with regard to the purchase and sale of the property. The court also held that the district court did not err when it denied PDNED's motion to dismiss LHC's negligent and fraudulent misrepresentations claims as a matter of law where the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support finding PDNED liable for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentations. The court also held that the jury's out-of-pocket award was the appropriate measure to compensate LHC for reliance costs but that lost profits were not an appropriate measure of damages for the fraudulent misrepresentations in this case. The court finally held that PDNED could not be considered the prevailing party in this litigation for purposes of the P&S Agreement's attorneys' fees provision. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's judgment against PDNED on LHC's promissory estoppel claim and the jury's award in lost profits. The court affirmed the district court's judgment and the jury's award of out-of-pocket damages and the denial of PDNED's motion for attorney's fees.

This appeal arose from the settlement of a class action where defendant paid substantial sums for res judicata protection from the claims of persons assertedly injured by the toxic emissions of an industrial plant. The monies were allocated among three subclasses, one of which was to receive medical monitoring. Upon the monitoring program's completion, substantial sums remained unused. The district court denied the settlement administrator's request to distribute the unused medical-monitoring funds to another subclass of persons suffering serious injuries. Instead, the district court repaired to the doctrine of cy pres and ordered that the money be given to three charities suggested by defendant and one selected by the district court. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by ordering a cy pres distribution in the teeth of the bargained-for-terms of the settlement agreement, which required residual funds to be distributed within the class. The court reversed the district court's order distributing the unused medical-monitoring funds to third-party charities and remanded with instructions that the district court order that the funds be distributed to the subclass comprising the most seriously injured class members.

This case arose when plaintiff lost his right to previously awarded, but unexercised, Restricted Units under Merrill Lynch's "Long-Term Incentive Compensation Plan for Managers and Producers" (the Plan). Plaintiff asserted that he had a right to his Restricted Units under an exception to the general rule, that employees lost their rights to Restricted Units not heretofore unexercised, because he left the firm for "Good Reason" after a "Change in Control." The district court granted summary judgment to plaintiff, holding that, under the applicable standard of review, Merrill Lynch's interpretation of the Plan was arbitrary. The court held that plaintiff failed to meet his burden of showing that no honest tribunal could have construed the Plan in any manner but his proffered reading and that Merrill Lynch had advanced an arbitrary reading of the Plan. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment to National Union with respect to his claims under the Texas Insurance Code (Insurance Code), Tex. Ins. Code Ann. 541.003, 541.051, 541.052, 541.061, and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. 17.46, 17.50, asserting misrepresentation and unconscionability. At issue was the Description of Coverage documents that National Union sent to plaintiff regarding eligibility for permanent total disability benefits under two insurance policies. The court held that plaintiff's contention that he had insufficient notice of National Union's basis for seeking summary judgment on his misrepresentation claims was unsustainable. The court also held that the definition of permanent total disability in the Descriptions of Coverage was ambiguous. The court held, however, that the ambiguity did not rise to the level of a misrepresentation within the meaning of the Insurance Code or the DTPA. To the extent that the Insurance Code required additional information to clarify an ambiguity, the reference to the master policy as controlling adequately informed a reasonable person that an ambiguity in the Description of Coverage was not binding if it conflicted with the policy. The court further held that plaintiff's unconscionability claims failed where he had not offered any reasoning as to the relevance of certain evidence regarding allegations of unconscionable conduct and where the claims were premised on conduct that had occurred after his injury and well after the inception of coverage under the policies. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment.