In Their Opinion : Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Commentary : Lawyer & Attorney Michael E. Rigney : Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm

JOHNSON v. WAL-MART STORES (December 1, 2009)

Candace Johnson visited her local Wal-Mart store in January 2008. Although she did not possess a Firearm Owners Identification Card, a salesclerk nevertheless sold her some bullets. Tragically, Candace Johnson then shot and killed herself. Her husband and the administrator of her estate, Mark Johnson, sued Wal-Mart for negligence and wrongful death. The district court dismissed the claims on the ground that suicide is an independent intervening event, negating proximate cause. Johnson appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Flaum and Evans affirmed. The Court recited the traditional elements of a negligence claim: a duty, a breach, and proximate cause. Historically, Illinois courts have found that suicide is unforeseeable and its presence breaks the chain of causation that is necessary for probable cause. The Court agreed that the sale of the bullets violated federal law and amounted to prima facie evidence of negligence, since the federal law is a public safety statute. The Court concluded, however, that Illinois courts continue to find that suicide breaks the chain of causation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

JAMES RIVER INSURANCE CO. v. KEMPER CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. (October 28, 2009)

James River and Kemper both issued malpractice insurance policies to a law firm. The Kemper policy covered claims made between September of 2000 and September of 2007, for acts committed between 1937 and 2002. The James River policy covered claims made between November 2004 and November 2005, for acts committed after November 2002. The malpractice suit giving rise to the dispute between the insurance companies alleged that two lawyers represented a wife in a divorce case. In December of 1999, they entered into a property settlement wherein their client was to receive a significant amount of her husband's stock options. Their attempt to document the settlement failed to accomplish the transfer of the options. A lawsuit against the husband was still pending when, in July 2001, the husband's employer declared bankruptcy, rendering the options worthless. The suit against the husband was finally dismissed in 2003. Thus, the acts complained of in the malpractice action occurred during both policies' claim periods. The James River policy contained a provision that excluded from coverage any claim that arose from the same set of circumstances as a claim under a "prior policy." James River brought a declaratory judgment action against Kemper seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify. The court granted summary judgment to Kemper. James River appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Manion and Tinder reversed. First, the Court concluded that the wrongful acts that occurred during the James River policy period arose from and were a continuation of the wrongful acts and decisions committed during the prior period. This was just the situation the James River exclusion addressed. Next, The Court considered the district court's ruling that the Kemper policy was not a “prior policy.” The district court had relied on the fact that the firm had purchased a five-year reporting extension on the Kemper policy. Although the policy period ended in 2002, the reporting extension allowed for a claim to be made through 2007. The Court noted, however, that the reporting extension did not extend the policy period. The Court concluded, therefore, that the Kemper policy was a "prior policy" and the James River exclusion applied. The Court remanded for the entry of the declaratory judgment requested by James River.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

CUNNINGHAM v. MASTERWEAR CORP. (June 23, 2009
 

The Cunninghams owned a building in Martinsville, Indiana in which they operated a photographic studio from 1986 until 2004. The building next door contained a dry cleaning establishment. Soon after the Cunninghams made the building their residence, they both began to experience headaches and other physical maladies. They moved out as soon as the EPA advised them that high levels of perchloroethylene (PCE), a chemical used in dry cleaning, in their home posed a potential health risk. The Cunninghams brought an action for common law nuisance, seeking damages for both their physical injuries and their loss of property value. The court disqualified their only medical expert and barred them from testifying regarding appraisals of their property. The court then granted summary judgment to the defendant. The Cunninghams appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Manion and Kanne affirmed. Although the expert had concluded that all of the Cunningham’s symptoms were caused by exposure to PCE, the Court noted that he was not a toxicologist, and he presented no scientific theory that linked the Cunningham’s exposure level to their symptoms. The Court concluded, therefore, he presented no evidence upon which a trier of fact could rely to conclude that the exposure was the cause of the ailments. With respect to the valuation of the property, the Court stated that a property owner can testify about the value of his property if he is an expert on property values or if he has personal knowledge. Cunningham simply wanted to repeat others’ assessments of the property’s value. The Court concluded that the testimony was properly disallowed as hearsay. The Court added that, even if the testimony was allowed, there was no evidence regarding the cause of any loss in value. Since the Cunningham’s were entitled only to the loss of value that could be fairly attributed to the PCE, as opposed to market forces or otherwise, they could not have prevailed even with the testimony.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

LEWIS v. CITGO PETROLEUM CORP. (April 6, 2009)

Michael Lewis and Tammy Livingston, employees of Philip Services Corporation, were performing maintenance work at a CITGO refinery when they were allegedly exposed to a hazardous gas. Emergency personnel responded, they went to the hospital, they received a full medical examination, they were released, and they returned to work the next day. Several years later, Lewis and Livingston asserted common-law negligence claims against CITGO. Livingston also asserted a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. Their claims were supported by two physicians -- -- Dr. Jordan Fink, a doctor of internal medicine, and Dr. Norman Kohn, a psychiatrist and neurologist. The court granted summary judgment to CITGO, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to satisfy their burden of demonstrating the reliability of the expert testimony. Lewis and Livingston appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Kanne and Tinder affirmed. The Court first addressed the question of whether Livingston was a "bystander" or a "direct victim" for purposes of the emotional distress claim under Illinois law. Concluding that she was a "direct victim," the Court noted that the plaintiffs' burden on both the common-law negligence and negligent infliction claims were to demonstrate a duty on the part of defendant and a breach that proximately caused the injury. The Court turned to causation and the lower court’s exclusion of the expert testimony. The Court approved the lower court’s application of Rule 702 and Daubert. It is the burden of the proponent, said the Court, to establish both the qualifications and the methodology of its experts. CITGO challenged Dr. Fink on both qualifications and methodology -- it challenged Dr. Kohn only on methodology. Although the Court recited some of the problems relating to the experts, it ultimately relied on the fact that plaintiffs failed to advance any substantive arguments in support of their experts’ qualifications. The Court concluded that the lower court was well within its discretion to exclude the evidence. Without this testimony, neither Lewis nor Livingston could provide evidence of causation with respect to the common law negligence claims. With respect to Livingston's claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, however, one of CITGO's own experts did testify that Livingston experienced "relatively mild" anxiety as a result of the exposure. The Court agreed with the lower court’s conclusion that the injury did not reach the threshold of severity to be compensable and was properly dismissed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

CRACCO v. VITRAN EXPRESS, INC. (March 17, 2009)

Kevin Cracco was a truck terminal manager at Vitran Express. In late 2006, he was hospitalized with a serious health condition and went on FMLA leave. Cracco's duties were performed by other employees during his absence. The replacement employees discovered a host of problem’s during Cracco’s absence: damaged freight, safety lapses and general disorganization. Vitran's further investigation also discovered falsified freight records. The company terminated Cracco's employment upon his return from leave. Cracco filed suit, alleging that the company violated his FMLA rights. The district court entered a default order when Vitran failed to respond. The court later vacated the default and granted summary judgment to Vitran. Cracco appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Manion and Sykes affirmed. The Court first affirmed the district court's order vacating the default. It found Vitran’s statement in its motion that Cracco was fired for cause sufficient to meet the liberal meritorious defense requirement of Rule 55. The Court also rejected Cracco's argument that the district court improperly deemed admitted a paragraph of Vitran’s Rule 56.1 statement of material facts. The paragraph contained multiple statements relating to the problems discovered at the terminal during Cracco’s leave. The Court conceded that the lower court could have required Vitran to unbundle the allegations. It concluded that the court did not abuse its discretion in requiring Cracco to respond to the paragraph, however. The Court then addressed the summary judgment ruling. With respect to the direct method of proof, Cracco attempted to establish a causal connection between his protected activities and his termination. He relied on the fact that he was terminated immediately upon his return from leave. The Court rejected the argument, concluding that the discovery of the performance problems during his leave negated any inference of causal connection. The Court concluded that Cracco was unable to establish two prongs of the indirect method of proof test: a) that he met his employer’s expectations and b) that he was treated less favorably than a similarly situated employee. Finally, because Cracco presented no evidence that he would have retained his job had he not taken FMLA leave, his interference claim failed as well.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

BOIM v. HOLY LAND FOUNDATION FOR RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT (December 3, 2008)

David Boim was a Jewish teenager living in Israel. He had dual Israeli/American citizenship. In 1996, he was killed by gunfire near Jerusalem. Boim’s parents brought suit under 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a). They alleged that defendants Muhammad Salah, Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (“HLF”), the American Muslim Society (“AMS”) and the Quranic Literacy Institute (“QLI”) all provided financial support to Hamas and that their son had been killed by Hamas gunmen. The district court rejected the argument that financial assistance was not international terrorism under § 2333(a) in denying defendants’ motion to dismiss. On an interlocutory appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court granted summary judgment on liability to plaintiffs with respect to Salah, HLF and AMS. A jury found QLI liable and assessed damages against all defendants of $52 million before trebling. On appeal, a Seventh Circuit panel vacated and remanded to redetermine liability. The plaintiffs petitioned for rehearing en banc, which was granted.

In their opinion, the Court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. The Court first addressed whether the statute even applies to defendants who are alleged only to have provided financial support to those engaged in terrorism. The statute does not specifically mention secondary liability and the Supreme Court in Central Bank of Denver held that a statute that did not mention secondary liability did not create secondary liability. Instead of resolving that issue directly, however, the Court explored an alternative approach. It parsed the language of sections 2331, 2332, 2333 and 2339. Section 2333 creates a cause of action for a person injured “by reason of an act of international terrorism.” Section 2331 includes in the definition of international terrorism “acts dangerous to human life” that violate the U.S. criminal law. The Court concluded that financial assistance to Hamas is an “act dangerous to human life” and violates section 2339. Section 2339 was enacted in 1994 and makes it a crime to provide “material support” knowing that it could be used in carrying out a violation of section 2332. Section 2332 criminalizes the killing of an American citizen outside the U.S. The Court followed this chain to determine that a mere financial contribution to a terrorist organization could violate section 2333. Having determined that the defendants could be liable, the Court proceeded to examine the cause of action and its elements. On the element of intent, the Court held that the defendants must either have known or been deliberately indifferent to whether the organization they funded committed terrorist acts. Given the extreme conduct of the terrorist groups, the Court concluded that it was enough to know the character of the organization. With respect to causation, the Court held that the knowing contributors could not avoid liability on causation because, as a whole, they significantly increased the possibility that Boim would be a target of a Hamas terrorist act.

Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Court addressed each defendant’s liability. It reversed with respect to HLF. The district court had erroneously applied principles of collateral estoppel from earlier litigation to the liability of HLF. The Court remanded for an analysis of HLF’s liability in light of its opinion. The Court reversed outright the findings as against Salah. Salah had been in custody during the period between the enactment of section 2339(a) and the shooting of Boim and could not have provided material support to Hamas during that time. The Court affirmed the findings as against defendants AMS and QLI. It found sufficient evidence that AMS knew that Hamas was a terrorist organization and that it provided material support to Hamas. QLI had elected not to participate in its trial and therefore could not object to the jury instructions or findings.

Finally, the Court addressed the lower court’s determination that the men who killed Boim were members of Hamas. The principle evidence on that point was the affidavit of an expert witness, Dr. Paz. Paz, an expert on terrorism, based his conclusion on terrorist internet sites, notes from a U.S. foreign service officer, and an Islamic-language document purporting to reflect the conviction of one of the murderers. The Court conceded that much of the evidence on which Paz relied was inadmissible. Noting that experts are not limited to admissible evidence in forming their opinions, the Court concluded that the type of evidence on which Paz relied is relied on by security and terrorism experts generally. The Court also noted that the defendants did not introduce any evidence to the contrary. The Court found no error in the lower court’s consideration of the affidavit.

Judge Rovner wrote separately, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Judge Rovner took principal exception to the majority’s conclusions with respect to causation and the Paz affidavit. She believed that the majority practically eliminated a causation requirement. She would have at least required expert testimony regarding the financial structure of Hamas and the various organizations it controlled. With respect to Paz, she criticized the majority for not only allowing the affidavit based on unproven evidence but for allowing it to support summary judgment. She noted that the defendants are not required to rebut factual propositions on which plaintiff has the burden of proof and has not properly supported. Judge Rovner would remand with respect to all defendants.

Judge Wood also wrote separately, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Judge Wood principally criticized the majority for its treatment of causation with respect to AMS and QLI. She concedes that “but-for” causation is sometimes not necessary, but she noted that the majority also eliminated the requirement for “sufficient” cause and apparently put little limitation on the remoteness of liability. Judge Wood would require at least proof that AMS and QLI contributed a “non-trivial” sum of money to an organization that was sufficiently connected to Hamas that the money indirectly supported Hamas’ terrorist mission. She also would impose a proximate cause limitation on the acts of the defendants, which the majority did not do. Judge Wood also disagreed with the majority’s statements on the scope of liability under the statute, calling it “awfully vague.” Finally, she disagreed with the treatment of the Paz affidavit and would remand to allow plaintiffs to meet the threshold requirements of Rule 702.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link