Skip to main content

Criminal, Insurance and Product Liability Decisions

By FindLaw Staff on March 26, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

Wilson v. Bruks-Klockner Inc., No. 08-30914, involved plaintiffs' appeal from the district court's order denying their motion for leave to amend their complaint to add a non-diverse defendant in order to defeat diversity jurisdiction.  The court of appeals affirmed because the wood chipper that injured plaintiff was an improvement to immovable property for purposes of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. section 9:2772 and thus there was no reasonable basis to predict that plaintiffs could recover on their claims against the non-diverse defendant that installed the device.

US v. Rodriguez, No. 09-20181, concerned a prosecution for conspiracy to sell firearms without a license.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence following remand, which was greater than the sentence he originally received, on the grounds that 1) the Fifth Circuit would not apply a presumption of vindictiveness when different judges preside over the first and second sentencing; and 2) there was absolutely no evidence that the second judge was reasonably likely to impose a vindictive sentence.

Delta Seaboard Well Servs. Inc. v. Am. Int'l. Specialty Lines Ins. Co., No. 09-20311, involved an action seeking coverage under an excess commercial liability policy issued by defendant regarding "loss of hole" at an oil well.  The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant, holding that the umbrella policy's "followform" endorsement unambiguously adopted the exclusions of the underlying policy, and that policy's exclusion for loss of hole was dispositive.

Copied to clipboard