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

Defendant, a technology company that sold data centers, appealed the district court's judgment on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, a company that purchased defendant's fiber management systems and intelligent fiber systems, in plaintiff's suit for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement. At issue was whether the district court erred in denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law. The court held that because plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that defendant had no intent to perform under the "best efforts" provision of the contract and failed to present any evidence of damages on its other claim, the judgment of the district court was reversed and remanded to the district court to enter judgment in favor of defendant. Accordingly, the court did not reach the other issues raised by defendant on appeal.

This case involved the construction and application of a combined professional and general liability insurance policy issued by appellant to appellee where appellee requested a defense from appellant under the policy for a civil lawsuit. In that underlying suit, plaintiff alleged that while her mother was terminally ill, she consented to appellee's harvesting of some of her mother's organs and tissues after her mother's death and consented to the harvesting because appellee was a non-profit corporation. Appellee, instead, transferred the tissues to a for-profit company, which sold the tissues to hospitals at a profit. Appellee subsequently sought coverage under its general liability insurance with appellant and appellant denied coverage because the conduct alleged was outside the scope of the insurance policy's coverage. The court certified the following questions to the Supreme Court of Texas: (1) "Does the insurance policy provision for coverage of 'personal injury,' defined therein as 'bodily injury, sickness, or disease including death resulting therefrom sustained by any person,' include coverage for mental anguish, unrelated to physical damage to or disease of the plaintiff's body?" (2) "Does the insurance policy provision for coverage of 'property damage,' defined therein as 'physical injury to or destruction of tangible property, including consequential loss of use thereof, or loss of use of tangible property which has not been physically injured or destroyed,' include coverage for the underlying plaintiff's loss of use of her deceased mother's tissues, organs, bones, and body parts?"

Defendant appealed the district court's award to plaintiff of prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of five percent to the date of its final judgment where plaintiff initially sued defendant for fraud and breach of contract in connection with the sale of securities. At issue was whether defendant's deposit of plaintiff's damages into the registry of the district court should prevent the accrual of prejudgment interest at the statutory rate after that date. Because such a result would be inconsistent with the purpose of prejudgment interest and would undermine the rule applied to awards of prejudgment interest by the Supreme Court of Texas, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

New York Marine & General Insurance Company ("NYMAGIC") and Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ("NUFIC-PA") were both insuring Bayou Steel Corporation ("Bayou") when an employee of Bayou's Illinois stevedoring contractor, Kindra Marine Terminal ("Kindra"), was injured during Kindra's unloading of Bayou's steel bundles from a vessel belonging to Memco Barge Lines ("Memco"). Memco had contracted with Bayou to haul the cargo for Bayou by barge from Louisiana to Illinois. At issue was whether Kindra was Bayou's contractor or subcontractor for purposes of the provision in NYMAGIC's policy that excluded coverage of Bayou's liability for bodily injury incurred by employees of Bayou's subcontractors but did not exclude coverage of such injuries incurred by Bayou's contractors. The court held that, because Bayou was the principal party, paying party, and not the prime contractor, performance party, under both its barge transportation agreement with Memco and its offloading agreement with Kindra, there was no way for Kindra to have been a subcontractor of Bayou within the intendment of NYMAGIC's policy's exclusion of coverage. Kindra contracted directly with Bayou, not with some contractor of Bayou, to offload Bayou's cargo, so Kindra was Bayou's contractor. Accordingly, NYMAGIC's coverage exclusion did not apply to the employee's injuries because he was the employee of a contractor of Bayou.

QT Trading, L.P. ("QT") sued defendants for rust damage to its steel pipes that allegedly occurred during their transport from Dalian, China to Houston, Texas. At issue was whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to in personam defendants on QT's claims for damages under the Carriage of Goods at Sea Act ("COGSA"), 46 U.S.C. 30701 note (Carriage of Goods by Sea), and for negligent bailment of its goods. The court affirmed summary judgment and held that the district court properly dismissed QT's COGSA claims where QT failed to establish genuine issues of material fact where none of the defendants were "carriers" and thus could not be liable for damages under the statute. The court also held that the district court properly dismissed QT's bailment claims where QT failed to show that a certain defendant had exclusive possession of the cargo.

Plaintiff sued defendant in personam and also sued a number of defendant's vessels in rem for breach of contract when defendant failed to make payments due on four promissory notes held by plaintiff and on defendant's default on loan agreements to cover those notes. At issue was whether the district court properly granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment based on the determination that defendant's defenses were not assertable under Alabama law and that there were no genuine issues of material fact. The court affirmed summary judgment and held that the "entire agreement" clause in the Third Amended Loan Agreement between plaintiff and defendant defeated defendant's defenses of promissory and equitable estoppel.

Plaintiffs, purchasers of condominium units at a planned development on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, demanded rescission of their sales contracts on the basis of violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act ("ILSA"). At issue was whether plaintiffs' condominium units were exempt from the disclosure requirements of ILSA and therefore, defendant would not be liable for failing to provide the required property report. The court held that plaintiffs' condominium units were not entitled to an ILSA exemption and therefore, defendant violated ILSA when it did not provide the required disclosures.

Plaintiffs, purchasers of condominium units at a planned development on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, demanded rescission of their sales contracts on the basis of violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act ("ILSA"). At issue was whether plaintiffs' condominium units were exempt from the disclosure requirements of ILSA and therefore, defendant would not be liable for failing to provide the required property report. The court held that plaintiffs' condominium units were not entitled to an ILSA exemption and therefore, defendant violated ILSA when it did not provide the required disclosures.

Plaintiffs, purchasers of condominium units at a planned development on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, demanded rescission of their sales contracts on the basis of violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act ("ILSA"). At issue was whether plaintiffs' condominium units were exempt from the disclosure requirements of ILSA and therefore, defendant would not be liable for failing to provide the required property report. The court held that plaintiffs' condominium units were not entitled to an ILSA exemption and therefore, defendant violated ILSA when it did not provide the required disclosures.

Plaintiffs, purchasers of condominium units at a planned development on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, demanded rescission of their sales contracts on the basis of violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act ("ILSA"). At issue was whether plaintiffs' condominium units were exempt from the disclosure requirements of ILSA and therefore, defendant would not be liable for failing to provide the required property report. The court held that plaintiffs' condominium units were not entitled to an ILSA exemption and therefore, defendant violated ILSA when it did not provide the required disclosures.