Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 292: Listen and Learn -- The Erie Doctrine (Civ Pro)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 126: Listen and Learn -- The Erie Doctrine
In a 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held on February 21, 2024, that choice-of-law clauses in marine insurance contracts are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law. These clauses should be enforced unless...more
On February 21, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC, No. 22-500. The Court held that choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable...more
The rare insurance dispute has appeared on the horizon for the nation’s highest court. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and agreed to take up the case of Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty...more
Most of us have heard the expression “Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit did not slaughter the officials of the lenders in its November 16, 2021 opinion in Hengle...more
A Missouri federal district court became the second court within the past 15 months to consider whether a state's public policy overrides an insurance policy's choice of law provision. Maritz Holdings v. Certain Underwriters...more
The dispute involved an arbitration related to alleged medical malpractice by doctors selected by Carnival Cruise Lines to treat a wrist injury of a Serbian employee of Carnival. The employee’s employment agreement with...more
Sinatra may have found success in the city that never sleeps, but a California court has just made it more difficult for any party doing business with a California resident to do the same. At least, when it comes to resolving...more
California courts will generally give effect to a mandatory forum selection clause unless enforcement would be unreasonable or unfair, and the party opposing enforcement of the clause ordinarily bears the burden of proving...more
Many contracts include a choice-of-law provision in which the parties agree to use a particular jurisdiction’s set of laws to govern the contract. These provisions promote predictability. No matter where a dispute may arise...more
The California Supreme Court has struck a blow to insurers' attempts to contract out of more policyholder friendly jurisdictions, holding that the notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy. Pitzer College v. Indian...more
In Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, the California Supreme Court resolved two previously open questions in insurance law: (1) it concluded that the notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy of...more
In answering two questions posed to it by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court on August 29, 2019, addressed two significant issues: 1) whether California’s common law notice-prejudice rule is a...more
On August 29, 2019, the California Supreme Court issued a decision on an important issue to many insurance coverage disputes. In Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., the Court held that California’s...more
Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, — P.3d –, 2019 WL 4065521 (2019); California Supreme Court, Case No. S239510 (Aug. 29, 2019). On certified questions by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California...more
On August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public...more
Before a court can resolve a dispute, it often needs to determine what law applies to that dispute. In certain insurance cases, that question will appear to have an easy answer. Some policies include explicit choice-of-law...more
Not quite three years ago, I penned the following lines: "My guess is that most attorneys would say that the duty of an officer to the corporation are governed by the law of the state of incorporation under the "internal...more
Last month, the New Jersey State Senate introduced Senate Bill 3518 (the “Bill”), which, if passed, will severely restrict the use and enforceability of employee non-compete agreements in the state of New Jersey. Most...more
There is no question that noncompete agreements in California employment contracts are generally unenforceable. Many other states, however, may enforce such agreements if they are “reasonable” in duration and geographic...more
It is not uncommon for parties to enter into agreements containing jury waiver provisions. However, enforcing such provisions in California courts may be a losing battle. California has a strong public policy in favor of the...more
A recent High Court judgment has highlighted the importance of carefully drafting arbitration agreements and the difficulties of challenging arbitral awards on public policy grounds. In National Iranian Oil Company v Crescent...more
Companies conducting business in more than one state frequently seek to select the state law that will govern the interpretation and enforcement of their contracts by including a choice of law provision in their agreements....more
Judge Gale's opinion last week in Western Sky in State v. Western Sky Financial, LLC, 2015 NCBC 84 has a little bit of everything in it: choice of law, the U.S. Constitution, claims for usury (excessive interest rates) and...more
In a blow to New York employers who wish to enforce restrictive covenants under other state law, the New York Court of Appeals recently held that the Florida choice of law provision in an employment agreement was...more