Essay on Sumerel v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Case Study

The customers, Charles Ellison and Susan Bresler represented by the Atlanta law firm Strickland Brockington & Lewis sued the Natural Gas Company “under a private right of action in the Gas Act.” The plaintiffs sought to recoup their overpayments charged through the defendant’s violations of the Natural Gas Competition and Deregulation Act (Natural Gas Act). The defendant asked the court to dismiss the case due to the plaintiff’s failure to establish a reasonable claim on which repayment should be given. A trial court granted a motion to dismiss the case, but an

The Law firm won the case in the end with the verdict that Pacific Gas & Energy had to compensate the plaintiffs in the amount of $333 million for damages (cornell.edu web site).

(the defendant). Cruz’s parents sent an email to Fagor on the date of the occurrence detailing said incident, and the defendant responded by denying liability. Cruz filed a complaint against Fagor alleging causes of action for negligence and product liability. Through his attorney, Cruz mailed the summons and complaint addressed to the company’s Chairman of the Board through certified mail requesting a return receipt. The receipt indicated that the envelope was accepted and signed for by an individual at the company headquarters, but Fagor failed to file an answer or make any appearance until after the plaintiff had entered a motion for a default judgment against the defendant. The defendant filed a motion to set aside the entry of default and the default judgment, which the court granted on the grounds that there was no proof that the summons and complaint:

The parties in this lawsuit are: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (plaintiff) and Mims Distributing Company, Inc (defendant), the EEOC is the plaintiff on behalf of Christopher Alston (Lally, 2015). Christopher Alston was a potential employee of the Mims Distributing Company, Inc.

ISSUE: Is Gary Fox liable for payment of the fee and was he acting only as an agent for the

Case Study of case 69 A.D.3d 413: Yun Tung Chow vs. Reckitt & Colman, Inc.

Have you ever been done wrong? Have you ever been done wrong under a contract and faced sufficient damages causing a loss? Chapter 18 focuses on contract remedies, and how damages to a party are compensated. When a party breaches a contract, under the law the court can give the injured party an equivalent of what the promised performance would have rewarded. The two cases I chose to discuss are the Arrowhead School District No. 75, Park County, Montana v. James A. Klyap, Jr. case and the Parker v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. case. Both of these cases provide us with a very good explanation of different types of damages, and how the court came to a conclusion based off of the different scenarios. Throughout the remainder of this article, it will briefly discuss the details of each case, the similarities and differences among them, and how your business clients can use these cases to strategically prevent future legal issues of similar nature.

David A. Goldmeier and Terry C. Goldmeier v. Allstate Insurance Company 337 F.3d 629 (6th Cir 2003) case supports our

Originally, Iva refused to pay the advertisement fee to Plaintiff claiming the contract was unintended, and Plaintiff entered into the lawsuit. After the trial judged in favor of Plaintiff, Iva appealed to the appellate court alleging the contract was made by misleading of Plaintiff 's sales representative.

We write today to present you with a demand for settlement and the supporting documentation for our demand. As you know, we represent Ms. Betty Brath in the matter of a grievous injury she suffered due to the negligence of your insured. Ms. Brath has reached maximum medical improvement but unfortunately will never fully recover. We are able to calculate her past and future medical expenses at approximately $34,177.73. Her general damages at trial will be approximately $170,000.00. We therefore demand payment in the amount of $204,177.73. We elaborate on this demand below.

This case shows that the insurance company’s duty to deal in good faith does not extend to the plaintiffs who were not insured under the contract. Because there was no relationship with the insurer, the plaintiffs could not bring a direct action for bad faith against the insurance company to recover an amount in excess of the policy limits.

Young argued that the firm had a conflict of interest when it continued to represent other employees of Young’s employer, and when their settlement included a rule barring the firm from suing the employer in the future. Young believed that the firm had waited to pursue her case until its other case was settled. The jury determined that Becker & Poliakoff knew that the case had been dismissed, but withheld that information from Young so they could settle the other case and secure the $2.9 million fee and cost reimbursement in that case. The jury returned a verdict for Young of $394,000 in compensatory damages as a result of Becker & Poliakoff’s breach of fiduciary duty. The total compensatory damages consisted of $144,000 in past lost wages and $250,000 in damages for

financials and that had they sued on basis of gross negligence, they would have been successful. Distinction being the fact that blindly giving assent is as bad as committing fraud. To reiterate, the difference between negligence (which they sued for) itself and gross negligence is in fact a relationship that exist between the parties in dealing.

"[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.

v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., the court was tasked to decide if the post-closing price dispute provision controlled the seller’s objections or if the objections fell under the indemnification arbitration provision. The court reasoned that since the post-closing price dispute provision clearly set forth that the expert accountants shall “determine on the basis of Accounting Principles whether and to what extent, if any, the CNOAS requires adjustment,” the dispute provisions applied to the seller’s objections, which claimed incorrectly recorded values on the CNOAS. The court went on to find that even though the language of the post-closing price dispute provision did not refer to the expert accountant procedure as a valuation or appraisal, the agreement clearly provided for a third party to determine the controversy via a specific procedure which is allowed under N.Y. CPLR §