Westlaw Journals weekly round-up

March 26, 2014

Westlaw Journals Weekly RoundupHighlights from the past week’s litigation headlines over at the Westlaw Journals blog include a one-line U.S. Supreme Court opinion about wage arbitrations, a W. Va. ‘pill mill’ gets insurance defense coverage and BP’s oil spill settlement sticks:

Supreme Court orders California appeals court to reconsider arbitration ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court says a California appeals court must reconsider its decision to overturn a ruling that upheld individual arbitration in a wage suit against CarMax, based on a recent high court decision supporting contract class-action waivers. In a one-sentence Feb. 24 opinion granting CarMax Auto Superstore’s certiorari petition, the high court ordered California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal to review its March 2013 ruling in light of the Supreme Court’s later decision in American Express Co. et al. v. Italian Colors Restaurant et al., 133 S. Ct. 2304 (June 20, 2013). (Employment)

Drug distributor entitled to defense in West Virginia ‘pill mill’ case: Cincinnati Insurance Co. must defend a pharmaceutical distributor against claims by the state of West Virginia that it illegally distributed controlled substances by supplying doctors and pharmacies with drug quantities in excess of legitimate medical need, a federal judge ruled Mar. 4. U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley Jr. of the Western District of Kentucky found that Richie Enterprises LLC is owed defense coverage under its commercial general liability policy because at least some of the state’s allegations are rooted in negligence, meaning that Richie did not intend for its actions to cause any harm. (Insurance Coverage)

BP must stick to oil spill settlement, 5th Circuit rules: A divided panel of the 5th Circuit has ruled that oil giant BP must pay businesses for losses as a result of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill without the claimants having to prove their losses were caused by the oil spill. On Mar. 3, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a Dec. 24 trial court ruling that BP is bound by the settlement agreement it signed, and the court vacated an injunction that prohibited payment until the issue was resolved. The injunction had been in place since the December ruling, but BP filed an emergency motion with the 5th Circuit, seeking to continue it. (Environmental)