(United States Supreme Court) - Held that an international organization did not have as much immunity from lawsuits as it contended it did. The U.S.-headquartered organization was being sued in connection with its financing of a development project in India that allegedly created damaging pollution. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the organization's immunity was the same as foreign governments enjoy today under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, in a 7-1 decision interpreting the International Organizations Immunities Act. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the Court's opinion. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the decision.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an insurance dispute, addressed an issue relating to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Held that an insurance contract's conformity-to-statute provision did not negate the agreement to arbitrate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sought to enforce a judgment against Defendant in the Senior courts of England and Wales. The issue on appeal was the admissibility of a certain document. The appeals court determined that the document was rightly admitted by the trial court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Dismissal of an action brought by plaintiff-minority shareholders for "rescissionary damages" based on breach of fiduciary duty by defendants with respect to a proposed buyout of defendant-company, is: 1) affirmed in part, where under Corporations Code section 1312(b), in common control situations, dissenting minority shareholders have the remedy of appraisal unless they elect the remedy of stopping or rescinding the reorganization but they do not have any right to sue for damages for breach of fiduciary duty; but 2) reversed in part and remanded, where plaintiffs have never withdrawn their alternative request to set aside the merger.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a proposed shareholder class action could not proceed in a California court. The proper jurisdiction was Delaware because the defendant corporation had adopted a bylaw designating Delaware as the exclusive litigation forum for intra-corporate disputes. The forum selection bylaw was enforceable even though it had been adopted without stockholder consent.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed that an insurance company timely removed an insurance coverage case to federal court by filing a notice of removal within the statutory 30-day time limit. The clock began to run only when the insurance company actually received the insured's complaint, not when its statutorily designated agent did.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that an insurance company did not have to arbitrate a former employee's claims before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), an entity with which the company had severed ties. The FINRA arbitration code no longer applied to the company, even though the employee had once been registered as a securities industry representative of the company.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a policyholder who successfully sued a life insurance company was not entitled to an award of attorney fees. Reversed the fee award, in this diversity jurisdiction case.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an insurance coverage dispute, addressed whether the daughter of an insured car crash victim was entitled to benefits under an uninsured motorist policy. Affirmed a judgment on the pleadings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an insurance company could not bring a subrogation claim against its insured's tenant (a furniture manufacturing business) for amounts paid out under a fire insurance policy, even if the tenant was negligent. Affirmed a summary judgment ruling.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that homeowners were not insured for their home's allegedly defective concrete foundation. The gradual deterioration of their still‐standing basement walls did not constitute a covered "collapse" under their homeowner's insurance policy. Affirmed a dismissal.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an insurance company did not abuse its discretion in denying disability benefits to an attorney who stopped working due to intractable migraines. Affirmed the judgment below in this ERISA case.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an insurance coverage dispute, revived an industrial plant's claim that the insurer should have provided coverage when broken metal brackets resulted in a shutdown of the entire facility. Reversed a summary judgment ruling.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an insurance dispute following an explosion and fire on an oil rig in Ohio, addressed arbitrability and personal jurisdiction issues. Affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision below.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an insurance company was not liable for bad faith for failing to settle a medical malpractice claim for the policy limit. Affirmed a JMOL against the claims of an outpatient surgical center.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In a dispute over life insurance coverage, held that a policy exclusion was applicable because a man's death from engaging in an act known as autoerotic asphyxiation qualified as intentionally self-inflicted injury.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an insurance company did not have to indemnify an insured for the cost of cleaning up groundwater contamination at its industrial sites. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer, in this case involving the policy's pollution exclusion clause.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a homeowner could not proceed with a lawsuit against an insurance company related to a claim for flood damage. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a punitive damages award against an automobile insurance company for unreasonably delaying payment to a policyholder after a car crash.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a dispute between a homeowner and a property insurance company over an allegedly misdirected check, held that the homeowner had no cause of action under a Uniform Commercial Code provision dealing with negotiable instruments. Affirmed summary judgment against the homeowner.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an insurance coverage dispute arising out of a car crash, construed Mississippi's Uninsured Motorist Act. Held that the insurer was entitled to summary judgment in this diversity action.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an insurance coverage case, held that a homeowner delayed too long before bringing suit over a flood insurance claim. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer, holding that the suit was time-barred.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an insurance company owed a duty to defend a general contractor who was being sued by homeowners over alleged roofing defects. The case involved a commercial general liability insurance policy issued to a roofing subcontractor. Reversed the decision below.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that an insurance company may not proceed with a negligence lawsuit against an adjuster for allegedly botching a claim for hurricane damage. The lawsuit was not filed within the statute of limitations.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The subject of a legal judgment sought to pursue the doctrine of estoppel to compel their insurer to pay out on the judgment against them from a decade before the policy's active date. They suffered no prejudice from the insurer's action and their case was dismissed.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court's entry of summary judgment for a company on a claim of breach of contract against an insurer was overturned because of the court's interpretation of the clause "as reported" to mean a report had been made, rather than referencing events that had already occurred at the time of the drafting.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Certified Question. The panel certified the question of state law to the Nevada Supreme Court asking whether an insurer is entitled reimbursement of costs already expended in defense of its insured where a determination has been made that the insurer owed no duty to defend and there was an agreement requiring reimbursement, but with no reservation of rights.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff, a Connecticut attorney, sued Defendants, a group of title insurance companies, for violating a Connecticut law that allows only Connecticut attorneys to act as title agents in the state. The original complaint contained class action allegations under the Class Action Fairness Act, but Plaintiff removed all class-action allegations in a subsequent complaint. The district court held that without the class-act allegations, it no longer had jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a diversity insurance coverage action, District Court erred in not applying the specialized meaning of terms in an insurance contract, as required by the California Civil Code (here “war” and “warlike action”). Summary judgment in favor of insurer overturned.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. An insurer had to replace the siding on an entire building whose south and west sides were damaged by a storm because the old siding was no longer available and the new siding didn't match.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Certified. The state Supreme Court was asked how they would interpret the subrogation waiver in common form contracting agreements, a question that has split courts nationwide.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. An insurer that did not receive timely notice of an accident could not be compelled to provide coverage.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed denial of motion to compel arbitration. An employee bringing a Private Attorney General’s Act claim may not be compelled to arbitrate that portion of the claim that seeks to recover underpaid wages.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiffs, employees of Defendant, signed an agreement with Defendant requiring binding arbitration of employment disputes after the complaint was filed. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration agreeing with Plaintiff that the arbitration agreement referred to future claims not the past ones brought by Plaintiff against Defendant. The appeals court disagreed stating that the agreement to arbitrate was clear and there was no qualifying language as to past or future events.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an employee of the California State Board of Equalization violated clearly established law by participating in law enforcement's execution of a search warrant at the business premises of a man with whom he had a recent altercation. Affirmed the denial of his motion seeking qualified immunity in this lawsuit alleging civil rights and tort claims.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that it is constitutional for San Francisco to impose a tax on drivers who park their cars in paid parking lots, even when the parking lot is operated by a state university.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiffs bought shares in a company that invests in government bonds. Plaintiffs contend that the dividends they received are exempt from taxation per the California Constitution. The trial court disagreed, and the appellate court upheld the ruling.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a challenge to the conditions placed on the privilege of admission to the Bar of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in Local Rule 701, the District Court's grant of the Government's motion to dismiss is affirmed where Rule 701 violates neither the Constitution nor federal law.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the denial of a bail surety's motion to vacate the forfeiture of a bail bond in a case where a defendant charged with drug trafficking offenses fled the country and was barred from reentry on account of the pending charges because the trial court may not grant a motion to vacate the forfeiture on a ground not asserted and on evidence not presented until after the appearance period has expired.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a writ petition in the case of a doctor who contested the introduction of arrest records relating to his conviction for possession of cocaine in professional misconduct proceedings and the tension between the Penal Code section stating that successful completion of a diversion program should not be used in a way that could result in the loss of a license and the Business and Professions Code section stating that the successful completion of diversion does not prohibit the agency from taking disciplinary action, holding that the latter statute was controlling.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an en banc opinion, addressed the constitutionality of a San Francisco ordinance that requires health warnings to be included in advertisements for certain sugar-sweetened beverages. Industry groups challenged the ordinance, contending that it violates freedom of commercial speech. Finding this argument persuasive, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court should have granted a preliminary injunction against the ordinance.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a case dealing with the issue of whether California's franchise tax applies to an out-of-state corporation whose sole connection with California is a 0.2 percent ownership interest in a manager-managed California limited liability company (LLC) investment fund, the trial court's judgment is affirmed where passively holding a 0.2 percent ownership interest, with no right of control over the business affairs of the LLC, does not constitute 'doing business' in California within the meaning of Rev. & Tax. Code section 23101.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the dismissal of a complaint brought by a company formed by a hairdresser who attempted to take advantage of changes in the law relating to whether cancelled companies can pursue litigation rather than litigate in a forthcoming manner, creating a situation where they were technically entitled to proceed but allowing them to do so would be unfair.

(California Court of Appeal) - Construing the appeal of a trial court order requiring a party whose ownership interests were contested to be a petition for writ of mandate and holding that partition statutes don't allow a court to order the manner of a property's partition before determining the ownership interests of the property at stake, reversing the court's order.

(Supreme Court of California) - In an action concerning who pays for storm drains, the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the Regional Water Quality Control Board for Los Angeles's permit conditions are mandated by federal law and that storm drain systems operators are not entitled to state reimbursement under Article XIII B, section 6, subd. (a) of the California Constitution is reversed where the permit conditions are not imposed by any federal law or regulatory system.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a petition for review challenging an Objection Letter sent by the EPA regarding draft permits for water reclamation plants in El Monte and Pomona, California, the petition is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where neither 33 U.S.C. section 1369(b)(1)(E) nor (F) of the Clean Water Act provided the court with subject matter jurisdiction to review the Objection Letter.

(United States First Circuit) - Vacated an order denying a request by Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) bondholders for relief from an automatic stay. The bondholders argued that a statute enacted by Congress to address Puerto Rico's financial crisis did not preclude them from obtaining relief so that they could petition another court to place PREPA into receivership. Agreeing, the First Circuit held that the district court erred in concluding otherwise.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that ride-sharing company Uber must comply with administrative subpoenas issued by San Francisco's City Attorney seeking data submitted to the California Public Utility Commission. Affirmed the decision below, rejecting Uber's confidentiality arguments.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In an appeal arising from four collection actions in which the government sought to recover unpaid antidumping duties from a surety, the Court of International Trade's judgment on the pleadings holding that the government is not entitled to non-statutory equitable interest for unpaid antidumping duties for imported goods, is affirmed where Trade Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award the government equitable prejudgment interest on top of 19 U.S.C. section 580 interest or in declining to permit defendant to make a deposit in an interest-bearing account.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment ordering forfeiture to the United States of seven ancient Cypriot coins and eight ancient Chinese coins. A numismatist organization that opposed import restrictions on ancient coins argued that the forfeiture order imposed in connection with international rules on ownership of cultural property was improper. However, the Fourth Circuit rejected each of the organization's contentions of error.