Skip to main content

Summary Judgment for Defendant in Insurance Coverage Action Reversed, and Bankruptcy and Criminal Matters

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

Eyeblaster, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., No. 08-3640, involved an action arising out of defendant's denial of coverage under two insurance policies.  The court of appeals reversed summary judgment for defendant on the grounds that 1) defendant failed to meet its burden to prove that the "sudden and accidental physical injury" exclusion in the policy applied; and 2) defendant owed a duty to plaintiff under its Errors or Omissions policy.

In re: Burival, No. 09-2483, concerned debtors' appeal from the bankruptcy appellate panel's (BAP) reversal of the bankruptcy court's order partially granting a creditor's claim for an administrative expense.  The court of appeals affirmed the BAP's order on the ground that 11 U.S.C. section 365(d)(3) unambiguously provided that a debtor must perform a rent obligation in full, until a lease is rejected.

In US v. Ross, No. 09-3879, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's sentence for conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base, on the ground that defendant's 1994 conviction for attempted burglary is a felony conviction for a "crime of violence" under the guidelines, and the district court properly classified defendant as a career offender.

In US v. Morse, No. 08-3425, the Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for filing false tax documents, on the grounds that 1) the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment based on the doctrine of judicial estoppel; 2) defendant's due process rights were not violated because he was not subject to contradictory prosecution; and 3) good cause existed to keep the indictment sealed.

Related Resources

Copied to clipboard