Forensics Talk

Breaking a Contract The Duke Way

Breaking a contract the Duke way   Point of Law.com

Posted by James R. Copland at 5:46 PM |

Breaking a contract the Duke way

Those who know me realize that however much disdain I hold for Trial Lawyers, Inc., I hold far more for the University of New Jersey at Durham, a/k/a Duke. So I was particularly tickled when I saw what happened when trial lawyers and Duke crossed paths:

[The University of Louisville] sued Duke for $450,000 -- or a series with another Atlantic Coast Conference opponent -- after the Blue Devils backed out of a four-game football contract with three dates remaining.

The contract called for a penalty of $150,000 per game if a date with a "team of similar stature" could not be arranged.

Duke's lawyers argued the Blue Devils, which have a record of 6-45 over the past five seasons, were so bad that any team would be a suitable replacement.

Judge Shepherd agreed in his summary:

"At oral argument, Duke (with a candor perhaps more attributable to good legal strategy than to institutional modesty) persuasively asserted that this is a threshold that could not be any lower. Duke's argument on this point cannot be reasonably disputed by Louisville."

Posted by James R. Copland at 5:46 PM | TrackBack (0)

Dads: No Cash For Unwanted Kids!

  How Appealing

In earlier press coverage, The Detroit News in March 2006 published an article headlined "Dads: No cash for unwanted children; In lawsuit, activists argue if women have right to decide fate of fetus, fathers can decline financial role." BBC News reported that "US men fight child support laws; Men's rights activists in the US are to argue in court that fathers do not have an obligation to pay money towards raising a child they did not want." And ABC12-TV of Flint, Michigan reported that "Matt Dubay speaks about lawsuit; Suit dubbed 'Roe vs. Wade for men.'"

As you might expect, the case has also generated substantial commentary. In The Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby had an op-ed entitled "The obligation of unwanted fatherhood." And in the Ideas section of that newspaper, Drake Bennett had a report headlined "A man's right to choose: This is Joe's sperm. It contains his genetic material. When joined with an egg, it can produce offspring--as well as certain legal responsibilities. Does Joe have any say in all this?" In USA Today, DeWayne Wickham had an op-ed entitled "Mich. paternity law dispute: A weak man, weaker case." And in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Rick Esenberg had an essay entitled "A 'male abortion' right?"
Posted at 10:21 AM by Howard Bashman

---

Health insurer to pay $12 million settlement

MSNBC News
Updated: 6:39 p.m. ET Sept 6, 2007

     Company applied incorrect fees, didn’t fix problems noted by regulators

         

United Healthcare on Thursday settled complaints about its past claims practices, agreeing to pay $12 million in fines to 36 states and the District of Columbia.

The largest sum, about $4 million, is going to New York, where the health insurer covers roughly 1 million people.

A joint investigation by insurance officials in the states found that the Minnetonka, Minn.-based insurer often applied incorrect fee schedules and deductibles, didn’t promptly pay claims, and was generally unable to correct problems pointed out by regulators, New York state insurance officials said Thursday.

Insurance officials in New York, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida and Iowa led the settlement negotiations.

The company also agreed to meet benchmarks for improving its claims accuracy and timeliness, appeals and handling of consumer complaints, or face up to $8 million in additional fines.

In May, United reached a similar agreement with Nebraska insurance officials, agreeing to pay a $650,000 fine. The company faced complaints there about delayed decisions, wrong decisions on coverage and giving bad information to consumers.

Motel Frat Parties: New Innkeeper Liability Decision

Point of Law.com
August 15, 2007

     "A Point of Law reader alerted me to an interesting premises liability case just decided in Pennsylvania. On Monday, the intermediate appellate court of that state held in Paliometros v. Loyola that a motel that rents rooms to a fraternity for a party is liable if one party-goer sexually assaults another.

 

Appellants, as innkeepers, knowing that a fraternity party was going to take place where there undoubtedly would be underage drinking going on, owed to Appellee the affirmative duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances, and to take precautions by having some supervisory personnel physically present on the premises to monitor both the premises and the conduct occurring upon the same in order to prevent any possible injury to Appellee, as a business invitee on their premises. Consequently, we agree with the trial court's conclusion that Appellants breached their "duty of care under the circumstances and in [their] position as an innkeeper."

The dissent points out that sexual assault is not a reasonably foreseeable result of underage drinking and, moreover, that the assault took place in an unoccupied room rented by the fraternity, where motel employees would not have patrolled. Therefore, the dissent would find no liability because of lack of causation."

Posted by Deborah LaFetra at 02:25 PM

Failed an Exam? See You in Court

From Overlawyered

 

27-year old former nursing student Nicholas Perrino is suing Columbia University to overturn an "F" he received after missing an exam:

Nicholas Perrino was kicked out of the Ivy League institution's School of Nursing for missing an exam, and now he is suing to get back in.

"I should have went to Yale," moaned Perrino, who is representing himself in the case.

The 27-year-old Illinois native said he was working toward two master's degrees last summer, when his grandparents became gravely ill, forcing him to take a few days off.

He told his instructors he would be absent for a skills exam and tried to arrange a makeup, Perrino claims in documents filed June 15 in Manhattan Supreme Court.

Instead, he says, the school failed him in the course - part of a fast-track master's program. Without the test, the school wouldn't let him continue his nursing coursework.

Filing academic grievances and appealing to the Columbia provost got him nowhere, he said, and he was withdrawn from the School of Nursing.

"It's insane," Perrino said. "It's not like I killed someone."

Perrino, who says he spent $65,000 on tuition, did complete a master's degree in public policy. He says he had a nearly spotless academic record at the School of Nursing.

A Columbia spokesman said he could only confirm Perrino had been a nursing student, and cited privacy rules preventing him from discussing the case.

Perrino is asking a judge to remove the "F" from his transcript, reinstate him at the school and reimburse tuition costs for classes he has already taken.

Presumably, legal action against universities by disgruntled students is fairly common. However, two of Perrino's statements deserve scrutiny.

First, he claims he "told his instructors" he would be missing the exam. That is far different than getting permission to miss the exam. Had his instructors granted his request, he likely would have said so in the court documents. The more likely scenario is that on the way out the door, he e-mailed his professor to say "sorry, I have an emergency and can't make the exam," or something similar.

Secondly, he complains that "it's not like (he) killed someone." Actually, there's a much less compelling case against him had he actually killed someone and not missed the exam. If he ran over someone with his car and the professors flunked him as a result, he may actually have a case. But by missing an exam, he gave them every reason to fail him.

It's difficult to envision Columbia not having some sort of written policy on unexcused absences for student exams. The fact that Perrino is representing himself may be an indication of how he feels about his chances in court.

Point of View

Both of his grandparents suddenly became gravely ill at the same time? Not, they had both been in an accident, but gravely ill. And he's going to be gone a few days? How inconvenient to happen right at exam time! And then he doesn't even ask permission. He just tells his instructors? Who does that? Personally, I wouldn't have bought that either.

27-year old former nursing student Nicholas Perrino is suing Columbia University to overturn an "F" he received after missing an exam:

Nicholas Perrino was kicked out of the Ivy League institution's School of Nursing for missing an exam, and now he is suing to get back in.

"I should have went to Yale," moaned Perrino, who is representing himself in the case.

The 27-year-old Illinois native said he was working toward two master's degrees last summer, when his grandparents became gravely ill, forcing him to take a few days off.

He told his instructors he would be absent for a skills exam and tried to arrange a makeup, Perrino claims in documents filed June 15 in Manhattan Supreme Court.

Instead, he says, the school failed him in the course - part of a fast-track master's program. Without the test, the school wouldn't let him continue his nursing coursework.

Filing academic grievances and appealing to the Columbia provost got him nowhere, he said, and he was withdrawn from the School of Nursing.

"It's insane," Perrino said. "It's not like I killed someone."

Perrino, who says he spent $65,000 on tuition, did complete a master's degree in public policy. He says he had a nearly spotless academic record at the School of Nursing.

A Columbia spokesman said he could only confirm Perrino had been a nursing student, and cited privacy rules preventing him from discussing the case.

Perrino is asking a judge to remove the "F" from his transcript, reinstate him at the school and reimburse tuition costs for classes he has already taken.

Presumably, legal action against universities by disgruntled students is fairly common. However, two of Perrino's statements deserve scrutiny.

First, he claims he "told his instructors" he would be missing the exam. That is far different than getting permission to miss the exam. Had his instructors granted his request, he likely would have said so in the court documents. The more likely scenario is that on the way out the door, he e-mailed his professor to say "sorry, I have an emergency and can't make the exam," or something similar.

Secondly, he complains that "it's not like (he) killed someone." Actually, there's a much less compelling case against him had he actually killed someone and not missed the exam. If he ran over someone with his car and the professors flunked him as a result, he may actually have a case. But by missing an exam, he gave them every reason to fail him.

It's difficult to envision Columbia not having some sort of written policy on unexcused absences for student exams. The fact that Perrino is representing himself may be an indication of how he feels about his chances in court.

Point of View

Both of his grandparents suddenly became gravely ill at the same time? Not, they had both been in an accident, but gravely ill. And he's going to be gone a few days? How inconvenient to happen right at exam time! And then he doesn't even ask permission. He just tells his instructors? Who does that? Personally, I wouldn't have bought that either.