Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After discovering that she had lung cancer that had spread to her brain, Killian underwent aggressive treatment on the advice of her doctor. The treatment was unsuccessful and she died. Her husband submitted medical bills for the cost of the treatments to her health insurance company. The company denied coverage on most of the expenses because the provider was not covered by the insurance plan network. The husband filed suit, seeking benefits for incurred medical expenses, relief for breach of fiduciary duty, and statutory damages for failure to produce plan documents. The district court dismissed denial-of-benefits and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims, but awarded minimal statutory damages against the plan administrator. In 2012, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissals, rejecting an argument that the plan documents were in conflict, but remanded for recalculation of the statutory damages award. On rehearing, en banc, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of benefits and statutory penalties holdings, but reversed on the breach of fiduciary duty claim. The instructions given in plan documents were deficient and a reasonable trier of fact could rule in favor of Killian, based on telephone conversations in which Killian attempt to determine whether the physicians who were about to perform surgery were within the network. View "Killian v. Concert Health Plan" on Justia Law

Sasafrasnet, an authorized distributor of BP products, provided Joseph with notice of its intent to terminate his franchise based on three occasions when Sasafrasnet attempted to debit Joseph’s bank account to pay for fuel deliveries but payment was denied for insufficient funds. The district court denied Joseph a preliminary injunction, finding that Joseph failed to meet his burden for a preliminary injunction under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act 15 U.S.C. 2805(b)(2)(A)(ii). After a remand, the district court found that two of Joseph’s NSFs should count as “failures” under the PMPA justifying termination, at least for purposes of showing that he was not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Joseph’s bank account was not adequately funded for the debit on two occasions because Joseph had decided to change banks, circumstances entirely within Joseph’s control. Given Joseph’s history of making late payments in substantial amounts because of insufficient funds (each was more than $22,000), the delinquent payments were not “technical” or “unimportant.” View "Joseph v. Sasafrasnet, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2000, the Schuchmans purchased homeowner’s insurance from State Auto to insure a residence in Junction City, Illinois. About 10 years later, a fire severely damaged the insured house and the Schuchmans made a claim against the homeowner’s policy. After a lengthy investigation, State Auto denied the claim on the basis that the Schuchmans were not residing on the “residence premises,” as that term is defined by the policy, and were maintaining a residence other than at the “residence premises,” in violation of the policy’s Special Provisions. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of State Auto. The Seventh Circuit reversed, agreeing that the term “residence premises” is ambiguous and should be liberally construed in favor of coverage. View "Schuchman v. State Auto Prop. & Cas.Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Manpower, an international staffing firm, is the parent of Right Management in Paris, France. A building in which Right leased space collapsed, so that Right’s offices were inaccessible. Right relocated without having access and incurred replacement costs and lost income from the interruption of operations. A local insurance policy, issued by ISOP’s French affiliate, provided primary coverage, and a master policy, issued by ISOP and covering Manpower’s operations worldwide, provided excess coverage over the local policy’s limits. Right received $250,000 under the local policy pursuant to a provision covering losses caused by lack of access by order of a civil authority. Another $250,000 was paid under the master policy, exhausting the $500,000 sublimit under a similar lack‐of‐access provision. Manpower also claimed that, under the master policy, it was entitled to reimbursement for business interruption losses and the loss of business personal property: about $12 million. ISOP denied the claim. The district court held that Manpower was covered under the master policy for business interruption losses and loss of business personal property and improvements, but excluded Manpower’s accounting expert, without whom Manpower could not establish those damages and held that the master policy was not triggered because the losses were also covered under the local policy, which had to be fully exhausted before master policy coverage was available. The Seventh Circuit reversed exclusion of the expert and entry of judgment against Manpower on the business interruption claim, but affirmed judgment for ISOP on the property loss claim. The master policy did not provide coverage for Manpower’s property losses.View "Manpower, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of the State of PA" on Justia Law

Under a 2008 master contract, governed by Minnesota law, Lyon, a Minnesota finance firm, had a right of first refusal to provide lease financing for Illinois Paper’s customers. Lyon had the option to purchase office equipment supplied by Illinois Paper and lease the equipment to Illinois Paper’s customers who were interested in that type of financing. Illinois Paper expressly warranted that “all lease transactions presented ... for review are valid and fully enforceable agreements.” Lyon purchased a copy machine from Illinois Paper and leased it to the Village of Bensenville for a term of six years. The Illinois Municipal Code provides that municipal equipment leases may not exceed five years. When the Village stopped paying, Lyon sued Illinois Paper for breach of the contractual warranty. The district court concluded that the warranty was a representation of law, not fact, and was not actionable in a suit for breach of contract or warranty. The Seventh Circuit certified the question to the Minnesota Supreme Court, noting that Minnesota adheres to the maxim that a person may not rely on another’s representation of law, so where reliance is an element of a tort claim (such as fraud), representations of law are not actionable. View "Lyon Fin. Servs., Inc. v. IL Paper & Copier Co." on Justia Law

Wilson worked as an admissions representative, recruiting students to enroll in CEC’s culinary arts college. CEC admissions representatives worked under a contract that gave them a bonus for each student they recruited, above a threshold, who completed a full course or a year of study. In 2010, the U.S. Department of Education issued regulations prohibiting this kind of arrangement; new rules were scheduled to take effect in July 2011. CEC decided announced to its admissions representatives that it would cease paying bonuses at the end of February 2011 and that no bonuses would be regarded as earned by that date unless the relevant student had completed the year of study or course by that time. Wilson sued, asserting that CEC owed him bonuses for “pipeline” students, whom he had recruited and who were on target to complete a full course or year of study between March and June 2011. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that Wilson successfully pleaded that CEC exercised its right to terminate the agreement in bad faith and in violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. View "Wilson v. Career Educ. Corp," on Justia Law

Representing a class of truck owner-operators, Walker sued Trailer Transit, a broker of trucking services, for breach of contract in Indiana state court. Trailer Transit removed the suit to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), section 1332(d)(2). Walker argued that notice of removal was untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after Trailer Transit “first ascertained” that the class’s theory of damages could result in recovery of more than $5 million. The district court denied a motion to remand. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The earliest possible trigger for removal was Walker’s response to Trailer Transit’s requests for admission seeking clarification of the theory of damages. Even that response did not affirmatively specify a damages figure under the class’s new theory, so the removal clock never actually started to run View "Walker v. Trailer Transit, Inc." on Justia Law

Healix and HHI compete in the business of infusion therapy services: administration of substances such as pharmaceuticals intravenously or by any method other than ingestion. Some medical care providers offer these services to patients in their offices. Healix and HHI provide support. In 2007 Healix recruited the Clinic as a new customer. The Clinic had two members: Keller, a physician, and Porter, a nurse practitioner. Under their five-year contract, Healix would provide services after the Clinic built an in-office pharmacy and hired staff to work there. The Clinic was responsible for the cost of construction. Healix required Keller and Porter to execute personal guarantees and took a security interest in accounts receivable. Four months after signing the contract, the Clinic notified Healix that it would not fulfill its responsibilities. The Clinic was in breach, but Healix did not sue. One month later, the Clinic entered into a contract with HHI. Healix learned of the new contract and sued HHI for copyright and trademark infringement and for tortious interference with a contract. The intellectual property claims were dismissed. After a trial, the district judge rejected the tortious-interference claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding lack of causation because the evidence indicated that the Clinic would have “walked away” regardless of HHI’s actions. View "Healix Infusion Therapy, Inc. v. HHI Infusion Servs., Inc.." on Justia Law

Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, Indiana is a municipal corporation that operates a major hospital and other facilities, including a health center operated in partnership with Citizens Health to serve the medically under-served population in Indianapolis. The health center was funded in part by a Section 330 Grant, awarded by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services. Section 330 grants fund qualifying health centers that provide primary health care services to medically under-served populations, 42 U.S.C. 254b. A In 2012, Health and Hospital decided to terminate the partnership with Citizens and relinquish the federal grant, which still had several years of funding remaining. Citizens sued Health and Hospital, HRS, and others in an effort to retain the grant funds. The district court granted defendants summary judgment, concluding that Citizens had no contractual, statutory, or constitutionally cognizable interest in the grant. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that Health and Hospital was the grantee; Citizens had no constitutionally-protected entitlement to the grant; and the terms of the contract between Health and Hospital and Citizens clear; there was no obligation to renew. View "Citizens Health Corp. v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

Four upper-level managers at Tradesmen, a construction staffing company, formed a competing company in 2009. Tradesmen filed suit alleging breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets and confidential information, breach of duty of loyalty, tortious interference with contractual relations, tortious interference with business expectancy, conversion, and civil conspiracy, and seeking a declaratory judgment with respect to covenants not to compete and injunctive relief. Proceedings against one defendant were stayed, due to bankruptcy. The district court granted summary judgment to the remaining defendants, except with respect to the declaratory judgment count, but found that the covenants had already expired. The district court denied attorney’s fees. The Seventh Circuit held that because of the stay, the summary judgment ruling was not a final decision, so that it lacked jurisdiction on appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1291, except with respect to the request for injunctive relief (28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1)). The court affirmed on that issue, reasoning that Tradesmen failed to show that it suffered any harm, let alone irreparable harm, from the remaining defendants’ actions. View "Tradesmen Int'l, Inc. v. Black" on Justia Law