Recognizing that every federal and state appellate court has held that the presence of Covid-19 does not cause direct physical harm to a business’s property, the Eleventh Circuit has held again—this time under Georgia law—that Covid-related expenses and losses are not covered by a business insurance policy. In Henry’s Louisiana Grill, Inc. v. Allied Insurance…
Fair Debt Collection Laws May Apply to Mortgage Statements
Answering a question of first impression for the court, the Eleventh Circuit held in Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 14013 (11th Cir. May 24, 2022), that a mortgage statement submitted to a borrower may, under certain circumstances, constitute a communication in connection with a debt that is subject to the…
All-Risk Insurance Coverage Doesn’t Cover All Risks from COVID-19
The Eleventh Circuit has answered an important and timely question about insurance coverage for business losses due to COVID-19. Under Florida law, an “all-risk” insurance policy covering direct physical loss or damage does not insure against losses and expenses incurred by businesses as a result of COVID-19. In SA Palm Beach, LLC v. Certain Underwriters…
Federal Arbitration Act, Not Georgia Arbitration Code, Applied to Review of Arbitration Award
In Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. OCELTIP Aviation 1 PTY Ltd, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 10382 (11th Cir. Apr. 18, 2022), the Eleventh Circuit rejected an argument that the parties’ contract provided for the Georgia Arbitration Code (“GAC”), rather than the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), to apply to proceedings to confirm or vacate an arbitration award….
Plaintiff’s Coal Gasification Claims Go Up in Smoke, $13 Million Verdict on Defendant’s Counterclaim Remains
In MidAmerica C2L Inc. v. Siemens Energy Inc., 25 F.4th 1312 (11th Cir. Feb. 15, 2022), the Eleventh Circuit rejected an appeal from a $13.2 million verdict for the defendant in a lawsuit over coal gasification equipment. In an opinion written by Judge Barbara Lagoa and joined by Judges Newsom and Branch, the court affirmed,…
Paradise Found: Consumer Not Damaged by Purchasing (and Consuming) Gin Containing Prohibited “Grains of Paradise”
The Eleventh Circuit again had the opportunity to interpret the scope of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), this time applying the Act’s safe-harbor provision for actions otherwise permitted by law. In Marrache v. Bacardi U.S.A., Inc., 17 F.4th 1084 (11th Cir. Nov. 8, 2021), the court affirmed dismissal of a putative…
“Local Controversy” CAFA Exception Not Established by Proof of Class Citizenship
An inartfully pleaded class definition coupled with a failure of proof was enough to prevent a class-action plaintiff from invoking the Class Action Fairness Act’s “local controversy” exception to avoid removal from the sheltering arms of a Florida circuit court, according to the Eleventh Circuit in Simring v. GreenSky, LLC, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8002…
“Business Development Managers” Fall Under FLSA Administrative Exemption, Not Entitled to Overtime
In Brown v. Nexus Business Solutions, LLC, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8777 (11th Cir. Apr. 1, 2022), the Eleventh Circuit held that “business development managers,” tasked with persuading corporate customers to purchase General Motors vehicles for their fleets, are not entitled to overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The business development managers…
Restaurant’s Mandatory Service Charge is Not a “Tip” Under FLSA
Tipped employees at Miami’s Nusr-et Steakhouse sued their employer, alleging that the restaurant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by counting payments to employees from the restaurant’s mandatory 18% “service charge” as part of the employees’ “regular rate of pay,” rather than as tips. The district court rejected the employees’ claim and granted the restaurant’s…
Divided Panel Denies Petition to Appeal Sua Sponte Remand to State Court
In Ruhlen v. Holiday Haven Homeowners, Inc., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 6184 (11th Cir. Mar. 9, 2022), a divided panel of the Eleventh Circuit held that the court lacked appellate jurisdiction to review a district court’s sua sponte remand to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The underlying dispute concerned the presence or absence…