Comments on Recent Cases: August 2024

Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Summer_Olympics#/media/File:Dancesport_at_the_2018_Summer_Youth_Olympics_–_Mixed_Team_–_Quarterfinal_4_62.jpg

Part of my work involves reading court decisions to keep abreast of how judges decide the types of cases I handle. Below, I share some thoughts on recent decisions.

Court Permits Plaintiff to Assert Both an Emotional Distress Claim and a Negligence Claim

Many lawsuits arise from allegations that the defendant did something terrible. And, consistent with the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant’s conduct was awful, many complaints allege that the defendant intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the plaintiff. But not all misconduct gives rise to an “IIED” claim.

Some courts have held that a plaintiff cannot pursue an IIED claim where she also has another claim arising from the same facts. But in a recent decision from the state appeals court in Manhattan, the court held that a sexual abuse victim can allege a school was liable for both negligence and IIED. The court noted that IIED should not be available for plaintiffs to get around limitations on certain claims, like protections for employers to fire at-will employees or free-speech protections against certain defamation claims. But in a situation involving sex abuse, there was no protection that the plaintiff was evading by also alleging IIED.

Cases like this set an important for plaintiffs alleging emotional distress claims.

Defendant Asserts Arbitration Clause in Streaming Agreement Applies to Wrongful Death Claim

An important part of many contracts is the provision that governs how the parties will resolve disputes.  Many agreements state that any disputes will go to a private arbitrator instead of to court, and courts generally respect these provisions and refuse to hear cases when the parties have agreed to them.  But parties may still argue over whether the provision applies to the particular dispute.

A recent high profile case illustrates this issue.  A woman died after eating in a restaurant in Walt Disney World. She had a Disney+ account whose terms and conditions included an arbitration clause. Her husband sued Disney, claiming the restaurant caused her death. Disney claimed that the arbitration clause in the woman’s Disney+ account agreement meant that all claims - even ones unrelated to Disney+ - belong in arbitration. This would have prompted the court to determine the scope of the arbitration provision to determine whether it is limited - by its express terms or by how the court interprets it - so that it does not cover a wrongful death action at a theme park. But after the negative publicity that arose from this case, Disney decided to abandon the argument.

Cases like this serve as a an example of the issues that can arise in any lawsuit between parties who have agreements with each other, even if those agreements seem unrelated. And they serve to show that court arguments are public and that litigants may consider the publicity that arises from their arguments when choosing which arguments to make.

Court Interprets Agreement as a Whole

When considering what a provision in a contract means, courts often look at the agreement as a whole instead of looking at the terms in isolation.  This means that lawyers often make arguments to the court about the full context of an agreement when explaining how to enforce a specific term.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a satellite TV provider sued a TV station operator.  The station operator charged millions of dollars of fees related to a TV station that it represented was a major network affiliate.  A year into the agreement, the station lost its network affiliation, but the operator kept charging the fees.  The satellite provider sued, claiming that fees in the agreement did not apply to stations that lost network affiliation.  The operator claimed that the clause in the contract that concerned that specific station did not require the station be a network affiliate for the fees to be due.  But the court held that, reading the contract as a whole, that the other provisions in the contract indicated that the fees were only due if the station was a network affiliate.

Cases like this illustrate the need to draft agreements to be clear for when courts read them as a whole, considering how one clause will affect the interpretation of another.

Court Rejects Expert Report as Basis to Avoid Summary Dismissal of Injury Claim

One of the most important documents in a #litigation is an expert report.  In cases where a plaintiff alleges the defendant failed to meet certain standards, the expert report may provide necessary evidence to avoid dismissal through a summary judgment motion.  But a lawyer must pay close attention to her own side’s expert report to make sure it is consistent with her case.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a group of plaintiff argued that the trial court should not have dismissed their medical malpractice claim.  The plaintiffs argued that their expert report, which explained that the defendant hospital should have sent the patient at issue to the emergency room because he experienced a headache that lasted more than two days, was evidence that could have enabled them to prevail at trial.  But the appeals court held that, since the plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that the hospital misdiagnosed the patient, and not that the two-day headache should have prompted an emergency room referral, the expert report did not support the plaintiffs’ case.  Instead, it held, it raised a different theory of liability that the complaint did not assert.

Decisions like this illustrate how important it is for lawyers to ensure that their submissions are consistent with expert reports.