N.Y. Court Takes Contrary Position on Insurers’ Right to Recoup Defense Costs By Eric Stern and Andrew Lipkowitz | January 21, 2021
It has long been understood that under New York law, an insurance company may recoup defense costs paid on behalf of an insured once it has been ultimately determined that there was no coverage in connection with the underlying action, provided that the insurer reserved its rights to seek such reimbursement.
Multiple New York courts at both the trial and Appellate Division levels (New York’s intermediate appellate court), have adopted such a rule. However, a recent decision by the Appellate Division, Second Department in
The Supreme Court granted
Ramirez v. TransUnion LLC to consider “whether either Article III or Rule 23 permits a damages class action where the vast majority of the class suffered no actual injury, let alone an injury anything like what the class representative suffered.” This development is a welcomed opportunity for clarity in the standing context as it applies to class actions.
Troutman Pepper previously reported on the
Ramirez case, which can be found
here. The underlying case involved a product offered by TransUnion to identify consumers with names designated by the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Assets Control (“OFAC”) as posing a national security threat (
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On Monday and Tuesday of this week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a series of decisions addressing the Article III standing of consumer plaintiffs alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The court in five opinions resolving six different appeals arising out of putative class actions revisited the Supreme Court’s decision in
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), clarifying how an FDCPA plaintiff must allege and prove an “injury in fact” sufficient to establish subject-matter jurisdiction in a federal court.
Thursday, December 17, 2020
On Monday and Tuesday of this week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a series of decisions addressing the Article III standing of consumer plaintiffs alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The court in five opinions resolving six different appeals arising out of putative class actions revisited the Supreme Court’s decision in
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), clarifying how an FDCPA plaintiff must allege and prove an “injury in fact” sufficient to establish subject-matter jurisdiction in a federal court.
Two of the five opinions resulted in converting Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals of complaints for failure to state a claim to Rule 12(b)(1) dismissals for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: