The plaintiff filed suit seeking rescission of a mortgage loan from Yankee Bank on fraud grounds, along with return of prior payments and compensatory and punitive damages. After the bank entered receivership with the FDIC appointed as receiver, the court considered a motion to dismiss. The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 12 U.S.C. § 1464(d)(6)(C), which bars any order restraining or affecting the FDIC's powers as receiver, and that the claim would also fail for lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case involved a claim by Sony Magnetic Products against several shipping companies for damage to a shipment of videocassettes transported by sea from Alabama to England. The dispute was governed by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), under which the plaintiff sought recovery for losses due to alleged negligence or breach in the handling and carriage of the goods. The court examined whether the defendants could invoke statutory exceptions to liability or limit damages under the package limitation provision of COGSA section 1304(5), which caps recovery at $500 per package unless a higher value is declared. The core reasoning centered on the sufficiency of the bill of lading in providing the shipper a fair opportunity to declare a higher value and the determination of what constituted a "package" for limitation purposes.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved a declaratory judgment action brought by MacMillan-Bloedel against Firemen’s Insurance Company and the Kamyr Companies, seeking a ruling that the insurer’s liability policies covered any damages the Kamyr Companies might owe in a pending tort suit alleging negligent design, installation, inspection, and repair of equipment that caused property damage at MacMillan-Bloedel’s mill. The defendants moved to dismiss, noting that the insurer was defending the underlying suit and that none of the contracting parties wished to litigate coverage questions before the tort case concluded. The court granted the motions to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff lacked standing under the policies’ “no action” clauses, which Alabama courts have upheld and which require a final judgment against the insured before any action against the insurer; the court also exercised its discretion under the Declaratory Judgment Act to decline jurisdiction because the underlying liability had not been established and Alabama’s direct-action statute would provide a more appropriate remedy after judgment.

proceduretorts & liability