Posted on May 30, 2023
The express preemption provision of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (“FAAAA”) bars Florida negligence claims against a transportation broker based on the broker’s selection of motor carrier. Aspen American Insurance Company v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., 65 F.4th 1261 (11th Cir. 2023). The owner of cargo hired a transportation broker to secure a motor carrier to transport an expensive load to a purchaser across state lines. The transportation broker mistakenly turned the shipment over to a thief posing as a carrier registered with the broker, resulting in the loss of the...
Continue Reading
Posted on May 22, 2023
The Senate has confirmed Nancy Gbana Abudu to replace Judge Beverly Martin on the Eleventh Circuit. Abudu joins the Court from the Southern Poverty Law Center, where she served as Deputy Legal Director and Director for Strategic Litigation. According to the White House’s announcement upon her nomination, she will be “the first African-American woman judge ever to sit on the Eleventh Circuit, the second woman of color ever to sit on that court, and only the third African-American judge ever to sit on that court. She [will] also be the first person of color to serve on the Eleventh...
Continue Reading
Posted on May 17, 2023
Overruling Industrial Risk Insurers v. M.A.N. Gutehoffnunshutte GmbH, 141 F.3d 1434 (11th Cir. 1998) and Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical INPROTSA, S.A. v. Del Monte International GmbH, 921 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2019), the Eleventh Circuit has held that an international arbitration award falling under the New York Convention may be vacated by courts in the arbitration’s “primary jurisdiction” on any of the grounds set forth Chapter 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Corporación AIC, SA v. Hidroeléctrica Santa Rita S.A., 2023 WL 2922297 (11th Cir. April 13, 2023). Corporación AIC and...
Continue Reading
Posted on May 16, 2023
It is a truth universally acknowledged (by judges and lawyers, anyway), that unambiguous contract language must be interpreted according to its plain terms, without resort to extrinsic evidence. But what if that extrinsic evidence shows, without dispute, that both parties meant something else entirely? That court answered that question in Shiloh Christian Center v. Aspen Specialty Insurance Co., 65 F.4th 623 (April 13, 2023), holding that an insurance policy covered hurricane damage even though both the insurance company and the policyholder had clearly intended that such coverage be...
Continue Reading
Posted on May 16, 2023
A Razor Pocket Mod scooter that struck a vehicle insured under a State Farm automobile insurance policy was an “uninsured motor vehicle” sufficient to trigger the policy’s Uninsured Motor Vehicle (“UM”) coverage. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Spangler, 64 F.4th 1173 (11th Cir. April 3, 2023). After Anna Spangler suffered injuries as a result of the collision with the scooter, she and her husband submitted a claim to State Farm under their policy’s UM coverage. The UM section of the Spangler’s State Farm policy, which provided that State Farm would “pay compensatory damages for bodily...
Continue Reading
Posted on Apr 28, 2023
The Eleventh Circuit recently vacated approval of a class settlement which included, as an integral part, injunctive relief that no class representative had Article III standing to seek. Williams v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, 2023 WL 2906311 (11th Cir. Apr. 12, 2023), was brought on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased “brain performance supplements” under the brand name Neuriva. The five named plaintiffs alleged that the defendants used false and misleading statements to give the impression that their products’ active ingredients had been clinically tested to improve brain function,...
Continue Reading
Posted on Apr 17, 2023
The Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Johnson v. Dickenson, No. 22-389, 2023 WL 2959369 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2023), declining to review the Eleventh Circuit’s decision that incentive awards in class actions are impermissible under federal law. Johnson v. NPAS Sols., LLC, 975 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2020), denial of rehearing en banc, 43 F.4th 1138 (11th Cir. 2022). Posted by Tom Byrne.
Continue Reading
Posted on Mar 16, 2023
The en banc Eleventh Circuit announced on March 13 that it would rehear Drazen v. Pinto and vacated the panel opinion. As discussed in our post on the panel decision, the case addresses whether class members who lack Article III standing with respect to the claims asserted by the class are nonetheless permitted to receive benefits from a class settlement. The case also features a question the panel chose not to decide, which is whether a receipt of a single improper cell phone call is enough to confer standing under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case is tentatively set to be...
Continue Reading
Posted on Mar 10, 2023
In Nealy v. Warner Chappell Music, Inc., 2023 WL 2230267 (11th Cir. Feb. 27, 2023), the Eleventh Circuit rejected the application of a three-year “lookback” period for the purposes of awarding damages under the Copyright Act. In answering a certified question of law presented by the district court, the appellate panel declined to time-bar damages for acts of copyright infringement that occurred more than three years prior to the plaintiff’s filing suit. As background, it is important to understand the application of the statute of limitations to claims of copyright infringement. Under the...
Continue Reading
Posted on Mar 7, 2023
In Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC v. 18.27 Acres of Land, 59 F.4th 1158 (11th Cir. 2023), the court applied its prior-precedent rule and held that state rather than federal law provides the measure of compensation to be paid to a landowner upon a private party’s exercise of federal eminent-domain power under the federal Natural Gas Act. Sabal Trail is a natural-gas company eligible to exercise eminent domain power under either Florida law or federal law. In 2016, acting under federal eminent-domain authority, Sabal Trail condemned two tracts of land in Florida, owned by a father and son. The...
Continue Reading
Posted on Feb 15, 2023
Even after the Supreme Court limited the power of the Federal Trade Commission to receive monetary relief under § 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the FTC still has authority under § 19(b) of the FTC Act to freeze assets and impose a receivership, the Eleventh Circuit ruled in FTC v. Simple Health Plans LLC, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 2192 (11th Cir. Jan. 27, 2023). The FTC brought an enforcement action under § 5(a) of the FTC Act, which broadly prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, against Steven J. Dorfman and six of his companies. The FTC also...
Continue Reading
Posted on Jan 30, 2023
A modification of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan on the eve of the hearing on confirmation of that plan requires re-solicitation of votes and re-voting if the modification materially and adversely affects a class of claims or interests, i.e., equity holders, according to the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in In re America-CV Station Group, Inc., 56 F.4th 1302 (11th Cir. Jan. 5, 2023). The court reversed the bankruptcy court’s order confirming the plan, which had been affirmed by the district court on the first level of appeal. The case arose from the Chapter 11 bankruptcies of Caribevision...
Continue Reading
Posted on Jan 18, 2023
According to the Eleventh Circuit, that life insurance policy you took out on your own life with the intent to sell it to a stranger may not in fact be void as an illegal wagering contract. In Jackson National Life Insurance Co. v. Crum, 54 F.4th 1312 (11th Cir. 2022), the Eleventh Circuit adopted the Georgia Supreme Court’s answer to a certified question on this subject, reversing the district court’s ruling that a life insurance policy was void and unenforceable. Kelly Couch was HIV-positive with a short life expectancy when he acquired a life insurance policy from Jackson...
Continue Reading
Posted on Jan 3, 2023
Marida Silas brought state and federal claims, on behalf of her late husband, against the Sheriff of Broward County. The defendant removed the case to federal court, which dismissed the federal claims and set the remaining state-law claims for trial. Days before trial, the defendant moved to dismiss the remaining claims on the ground that the plaintiff had not been appointed as the personal representative of her husband’s estate. Without ruling on the motion to dismiss, and over the objection of both parties, the district court exercised its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to remand the...
Continue Reading