The published majority affirmed summary judgment and the fee orders. The insurer’s unjustified refusal to defend left it responsible for the resulting judgment, and the trial court acted within its discretion in setting attorney fees rather than using the requested contingency-based figure. With no additional proven injury, nominal UDTPA damages were proper. One judge dissented in part on notice and prejudice.
The First Department held that comparative claims about lower-emission gasoline were not deceptive and corporate sustainability messages were not tied closely enough to consumer sales.
The Second Department held that an auto dealer waived arbitration by omitting the defense, conducting discovery, declining ADR, and waiting approximately 18 months to move.
In a case of first impression, the Second Department held that the voluntary-payment doctrine did not bar a ticket buyer’s claim over fees allegedly hidden until after ticket selection.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court held that collateral economic benefits did not erase a business plaintiff’s Chapter 93A injury and that interest on a modified lien judgment ran from the original judgment.
The Superior Court refused to compel arbitration because FloatMe’s mobile signup did not conspicuously disclose the jury and class-action rights consumers purportedly waived.
The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a tenant’s $200,000 compensatory and $1.75 million punitive awards on federal credit-reporting and debt-collection claims, while remanding an overbroad costs award.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court held that a landlord’s violation of the Attorney General’s timely-repair regulation necessarily establishes a Chapter 93A violation.
The Superior Court held that alleged RESPA servicing violations do not create an affirmative defense to foreclosure and clarified borrower standing to contest assignments.
The Supreme Court held that the complaint adequately pleaded claims for breach of contract, fraud, violation of North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and defamation under the state’s notice-pleading standard. It affirmed dismissal of negligent misrepresentation, dismissed review of remaining issues as improvidently allowed, and remanded the revived claims.
The Massachusetts SJC held that one potentially covered prescribing allegation triggered an insurer’s duty to fund an entire medical-license defense.
The Third Department held that GM’s compelled receipt of accessories during a Lemon Law buyback did not state unjust enrichment and excused the manufacturer’s brief filing delay.
The First Department affirmed $2.78 million in additional restitution against equipment leasing fraud defendants under Executive Law § 63(12), rejecting attempts to relitigate resolved liability findings and sustaining the AG’s restitution calculation formula.
The Fourth DCA reversed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration in a FDUTPA vehicle purchase dispute, holding that the trial court erred by deferring factual disputes about agreement validity to a jury rather than resolving them at the evidentiary hearing.
The Fourth DCA reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of a corporate officer in an FDUTPA enforcement action by the Attorney General against a company that sold hydrogen-water machines with unsupported health claims and a misleading ‘case study’ reimbursement program.
The Second District reversed a small claims court judgment that found a used car dealer violated Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act, holding the buyer failed to prove the dealer made affirmative misrepresentations about the vehicle’s condition.
The Second District affirmed that Ohio’s Home Construction Service Suppliers Act (HCSSA) did not apply to a lumber company’s transaction with a homeowner because the company was a material supplier, not a “home construction service supplier” as defined by the statute.
The First District affirmed summary judgment for a debt collector, holding that an asset schedule produced in response to a court order for a more definite statement, combined with supporting documentation, was sufficient to establish the validity of the assignment of a defaulted credit card account.
The Eighth District affirmed summary judgment for the seller and real estate agent in a residential sale dispute, holding that Ohio’s caveat emptor doctrine barred fraud claims where the buyer purchased a 108-year-old home as-is with an inspection contingency.
The Sixth District affirmed the vacatur of a Tennessee default judgment enforced in Ohio, finding the Tennessee court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Ohio car dealer, and upheld sanctions against the pro se plaintiff for submitting AI-generated hallucinated case citations to the court.
The Twelfth District reversed summary judgment in favor of a roofing contractor on homeowners’ breach of contract claim, finding genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the work was performed in an unworkmanlike manner.
The First District revives a tortious interference claim by a disadvantaged business enterprise against a prime contractor that allegedly misrepresented the DBE’s qualifications to secure a waiver of state procurement DBE goals.