FDIC v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, 1990 WL 50721 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990) aff’d 837 S.W. 2d 373 (Tenn. 1992) after remand, 1995 WL 48462 (Tenn. 1995)
When the Butcher bank failures occurred during the mid-1980's, were were primarily involved in obtaining rescission of a Director’s and Officer’s Liability and Company Reimbursement policy issued by National Union to the failed United American Bank of Knoxville. In the end, we obtained rescission of the D&O Policy thereby avoiding potential claims of in excess of $24,000,000. Likewise, we were instrumental in settling other claims against directors and officers of the failed banks in negotiating settlements with the FDIC and providing defense strategy to attorneys for the individual directors and officers.
Phelps v. Bank of America, 2009 WL 690695 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2009).
We successfully defended a bank in an action brought by a joint venture partner claiming negligence and breach of contract based on bank’s distribution of loan proceeds to the joint venture entity.
Union Planters Financial Corp. v. Continental Casualty Company, 478 F.3d 759 (6th Cir. 2007)
Represented the first tier excess carrier and obtained summary judgment pursuant to an endorsement on the policy requiring simultaneous notice to the excess carrier, when notice provided to the primary carrier was a condition precedent to coverage. The district court and the Court of Appeals ruled that late notice (28 days) was not contemporaneous and that prejudice was not required to avoid coverage under the excess policy, thus avoiding a potential exposure of $25,000,000 to the excess carrier.
Western Express v. Lexington Insurance Company, 2008 WL 465263 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008)
Case of first impression in Tennessee on whether a clause that required the insured to be “actually in or upon the vehicle” as a condition precedent to theft coverage was enforceable and whether BMC 32 required the insurer to provide a defense to the any suit against the common carrier for cargo losses. The Court of Appeals upheld the provision and further held that no duty to defend existed due to the inclusion of BMC 32 within the policy.
Case distinguishing between price differential in lease agreement and usury
Tennessee Supreme Court distinguished between price differential in lease agreement and usury. Choice of law was at issue-an important issue for ortant issue for lenders prior to usury statute amendments.
Litigation against OEM to prevent unilateral price reductions and negotiated continuation of business
We represented a Tier One engine cradle and suspension assembly manufacturer in a suit against a major automotive OEM in an attempt to prevent further unilateral price reductions under long term supply agreements as part of the OEM's effort to cut costs and avoid bankruptcy. Our client filed suit in Warren County, Tennessee, and the OEM filed suit against our client four days later in Macomb County Circuit Court, Macomb County, Michigan. The Michigan court refused to dismiss the case, finding venue proper in Michigan. The Tennessee court found the OEM long term supply agreement venue provision vague and refused to dismiss the case, causing the OEM's CEO to instruct the OEM’s worldwide purchasing chief to settle the case, putting an end to the unilateral price reductions. The case resolved on favorable terms after four days of settlement negotiations with our client remaining as an OEM supplier. We also revised our client's terms and conditions of sale and purchase subsequent to settlement of the OEM litigation and continue to assisted this client on various matters in connection with its relationships with other OEMs.
Representation of construction company in arbitration
Arbitration and waiver.
Represented PRPs at Superfund sites in NY, NC and TN
Represented PRPs at Superfund sites in New York, North Carolina and Tennessee. Negotiated with EPA as member of joint defense groups to reach monetary settlement.
TN Supreme Court case resolved issues threatening foreclosure sales
Tennessee Supreme Court reversed Court of Appeals holding in unrelated case holding that language of d/t waiving "equity of redemption" was valid and applied to statutory right of redemption. This case resolved issues that threatened foreclosure sales.