Norton on Insurance Coverage in Pennsylvania, 2nd Edition (PBI Press)
4710 U.S. Steel Tower
600 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2702
Phone: 412-288-4000
Fax: 412-288-2405
Email
Latest Business and Legal News
These news items and case summaries are a service provided by FindLaw. Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. does not endorse any service or product advertised or discussed in any of these items.
Business
[09/02] American Eagle key revenue figure rises 1 percent
Intellectual Property
[08/26] Patent dispute spins around Cedar Fair's new ride
Insurance
[09/02] SIR Anticipates Record-Breaking Annual Conference
Environment
[09/02] UN: Climate funds shouldn't divert poverty aid
Case Summaries
Intellectual Property
[09/02] Bodum USA, Inc. v. La Cafetiere, Inc.
In a suit for common law trade dress of a French-press coffee maker known as the Chambord, district court's judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed as, Article 4 of the parties' contract is clear and precise as it allows defendant to sell the coffee maker design anywhere except France - provided that it does not use the Chambord or Melior names and does not use plaintiff's supply channels for four years.
[09/01] Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.
In a patent infringement suit related to a drug for postmenopausal osteoporosis, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) the record amply supports the district court's conclusion that the ordinary artisan would not have considered it obvious to use raloxifene to treat postmenopausal osteoporosis; 2) because the district court's conclusion that the Bone Loss Patents would not have been obvious, its conclusion as to the Low Dose Patent is affirmed as well; 3) district court did not err in concluding that the Bone Loss Patents and the Low Dose Patents were not invalid for lack of enablement; 4) the district court did not clearly err in invalidating the asserted claims of the Particle Size Patents for lack of written description.
Insurance Law
[09/02] Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. of Am. v. Nat'l. Union Ins. Co.
In an action by one insurer against another seeking $10 million in subrogation proceeds, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where plaintiff waived certain rights by refusing repeated invitations to participate in subrogation discussions. However, the judgment is reversed in part where, as the excess insurer, plaintiff was entitled to a priority interest in the subrogation proceeds representing insured losses.
[09/01] Sprinkles v. Associated Indem. Corp.
In plaintiffs' bad faith action against Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, arising from an underlying suit against defendant and his employer for causing the death of plaintiffs' father in an automobile accident, trial court's judgment sustaining the insurer's demurrer is affirmed as, under the complaint and matters judicially noticed, the defendant-employee was an insured, rendering the automobile exclusion in the GCL policy applicable, and Fireman's Fund had no duty to defend the employer.
Environmental Law
[09/01] Western Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink
In a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) challenge to eighteen amendments to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) grazing regulations, partial summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where: 1) the BLM failed to address concerns raised by its own experts, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the EPA, and state agencies; and 2) there was resounding evidence from agency experts that the eighteen amendments to the BLM's grazing regulations may affect listed species and their habitat. However, the order is vacated in part where the district court failed to consider plaintiffs' Federal Land Policy and Management Act claim under the framework and with the deference set forth in Chevron.
[08/31] Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy v. Universal Paragon Corp.
In defendant's suit against a law firm, claiming that an arbitrator's award of $7,554,149.13 in attorney fees and expenses for the law firm, related to its representation of defendant in an underlying complex environmental litigation, is unconscionable and violates public policy, superior court's affirmance of the award is affirmed as, assuming that defendant's claim of unconscionability is subject to judicial review as a predicate for determining whether the arbitration award violates public policy, the claim is rejected on the merits as neither the fee agreement nor the award actually issued by the arbitrator is unconscionable under rule 4-200 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Commercial Law
[09/01] Hollander v. Copacabana Nightclub
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought against several New York City nightclubs for discriminating against men on “Ladies’ Nights," dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the nightclubs were not state actors and thus were not subject to section 1983.
[08/31] Sinoying Logistics Pte Ltd. v. Yi Da Xin Trading Corp.
In an action seeking to attach defendant's property in New York as pre-judgment security for a pending arbitration in Hong Kong, dismissal of the action for lack of personal jurisdiction is affirmed where the district court did not err in declining to fashion an equitable remedy in circumstances where it was clear that the original attachment order could not be sustained in light of Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., 585 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2009).
Print This PageHome | Firm Overview | Practice Areas | Attorney Biographies | Resource Library | FindLaw Newsletter | Latest News and Case Summaries | Web Links | Firm Directory | Contact Us
© 2010 Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. All rights reserved.
