Brower Vs Gateway Case Summary

While victorious, the plaintiff’s believed that the district court had erred in their decision not to award punitive damages. The defendants, on the other hand, argued that the court had erred in denying their motion for summary judgment.

In March of 1970, in the case of Goldberg v. Kelly, the US Supreme Court confirmed that individuals who are denied certain government benefits have a constitutional right to a fair hearing before an impartial decision-maker. In accordance with the Mississippi Code § 43-13-116, individuals are allows the opportunity to request in writing a fair hearing in order to appeal decisions of denial, termination, suspension or reduction of eligibility and covered services.

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

favor. The case had yet again been appealed, and this time the Supreme Court is

I believe that the hospital should take the blame for the damages and suffering that Kelly Niles endured. This decision reflects the quality of care that Niles received while he was at the hospital and also correlates to his physical status. The neurosurgeons stated that his status would have been better if they got to him sooner and were able to treat him in time, but due to the negligence throughout his whole treatment he is left with the ability to only move his eyes and neck. The fact that there was doubt that Kelly would survive the next few days after his surgery supports my decision that what the court ruled was reasonable and appropriate. Kelly “remained in a coma for 46 days before gradually regaining consciousness.” Kelly is totally disabled and his condition can’t ever be improved with medical attention or surgical treatments which furthers my final decision (“Niles v. City of San Rafael,”

The ATRA and CALA are trying to stop minor cases from receiving enormous sums of money which will dampen the economy. The subject matter of these cases varies to some length including but not limited to medical and car insurance. In a case against Rich Mountain Nursing and Rehabilitation Center of Mena, jurors found the defendant, Mena, guilty of malpractice in the death of Margaretha Sauer, a ninety-three year old woman. The non-economic punitive damages cash award for the suffering and pain of the Sauer family to be paid by Mena was seventy-eight million dollars. Punitive damages is one of the issues that the ATRA is trying to combat. If nursing homes continue to have pay large sums for punitive damages, they will not be able to survive. The premium average liability offered by nursing homes has increased from $820,000 in 1999 to $11.6 million in 2001. With the liability premiums continuing to rise, the prospects of profits continue to dwindle. They will have no chance at retaining a profit and thus will have to close. It will also mean that doctors will charge more for their services, which leads to fewer health insurances carrying

A federal district court decided that Moore was deprived, and his Sixth amendment was deprived, and was granted habeas relief with the fifth Circuit court of

In Maryland, insurance policies are generally construed in the same manner as contracts. Collier v. MD-Individual Practice Ass 'n, Inc., 327 Md. 1, 5, 607 A.2d 537 (1992). An insurance contract, like any other contract, is measured by its terms unless a statute, a regulation, or public policy is violated thereby. Pac. Indem. Co. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 302 Md. 383, 388, 488 A.2d 486 (1985). We do not follow the rule, adopted in other jurisdictions, that an insurance policy is to be construed most strongly against the insurer. Collier, 327 Md. at 5; Cheney, 315 Md. at 766. We construe the instrument as a whole in order to determine the parties’ intent. Pac. Indem., 302 Md. at 388; Collier, 327 Md. at 5; Aragona v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 281 Md. 371, 375, 378 A.2d 1346 (1977). In order to determine the intention of the parties, “Maryland courts should examine the character of the contract, its purpose, and the facts and circumstances of the parties at the time of execution.” Pac. Indem., 302 Md. at 388 (citations omitted). In doing so, we give the words their usual, ordinary, and accepted meanings. Id.; Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Ackerman, 162 Md. App. 1, 5, 872 A.2d 110 (2005) (citing Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Scherr, 101 Md. App. 690, 695, 647 A.2d 1297 (1994)). The test is what meaning a reasonably prudent layperson would attach to the term. Pac. Indem., 302 Md. at 388.

The state has not yet resolved the suit, but that aside, it’s worthwhile to evaluate the larger implication. From the state’s actions, we can deduce two things: 1. The state

What did the appellate court rule? Did it agree with the trial court (affirm) or disagree (reverse)?

State Farm has asked whether it has a duty to defend the insured pursuant to the insured’s homeowners policy. It is our opinion that State Farm has no duty to defend the insured under the insured’s homeowners policy. The insured’s homeowners policy entitled the insured to a defense for “a suit brought against an insured for damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which this coverage applies, caused by an occurrence.” In this case, these elements initially triggering the insured’s homeowners policy are likely satisfied. Nevertheless, the SECTON II – Exclusions section provides that the liability coverage does not apply to any of the fifteen exclusions specifically enumerated therein.

The issue here becomes whether the court’s decision was the right one or if they could have come up with a different decision had the case been studied from different perspectives making the decision wrong. Both arguments (for and against the Court’s decision) are discussed below, but I personally believe that court’s decision was the only right one to make.

The Court ruled on the side of the Defendant, the Federal Communication Commission and it was a unanimous vote. Justice White wrote for the Court and he wrote that it was not possible to leave radio waves ungoverned by the fairness doctrine due to the spectrum scarcity. The

"[a]n insurance company has a duty to act in good faith in settling claims and a breach of that duty will give rise to a cause of action by the insured." Pasipanki v. Morton, 61 Ohio App. 3d 184, 185, 572 N.E.2d 234 (1990) (quoting Bean v. Metro. Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 9th Dist. No. 13543, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 4275, 1988 WL 114464 at *1 (Oct. 26, 1988)). Gekko did not act in good faith to settle Vic’s claim against Donna, and their failure to do so enables Donna has a cause of action against Gekko.

evidence with regard to the issue. The Supreme Court believed the respondent was denied due