About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (July 2020 - August 2021)

handle is hein.ali/contract0192 and id is 1 raw text is: CONTRACTS Generally C.A.11, 2021. Cit. generally in sup. Dermatologist, as assignee of benefits under patients' employee welfare benefit plans, sued administrator of the plans, after it denied her claim for benefits as an in- network provider and instead paid her only the benefits she was entitled to as an out-of-network provider. The district court granted defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that the plans' anti- assignment clauses prevented plaintiff from obtaining statutory standing to sue on behalf of patients under ERISA. This court affirmed, holding that, even if the plans at issue did not have enforceable anti- assignment provisions, plaintiff would still fail to state a claim because she was not entitled to any more compensation than she had already received. In making its decision, the court noted that, when tasked with shaping federal common law in the ERISA context, it had in past cases explicitly relied on rules found in the Restatement of Contracts. Griffin v. Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., 989 F.3d 923, 932. CHAPTER 3. FORMATION OF INFORMAL CONTRACTS TOPIC 4. INFORMAL CONTRACTS WITHOUT ASSENT OR CONSIDERATION § 90. Promise Reasonably Inducing Definite and Substantial Action N.D.Ala.2020. Quot. in case quot. in sup. Insured owners of a house that was destroyed by a fire sued insurer and contractor hired by insurer to rebuild the house, alleging breach of contract and other claims related to problems with contractor's work. This court granted insurer's motion to dismiss, holding that insurer's alleged verbal guarantee of contractor's work and its alleged promise to hire a different contractor to fix the problems were insufficient to give rise to a claim of promissory estoppel under Restatement of Contracts § 90. The court reasoned that promissory estoppel could not be used to enforce insurer's alleged verbal guarantee under the Statute of Frauds, and that insureds failed to allege that they took any action or forbore from taking any action in reliance on insurer's alleged promise to hire a different contractor, as required to state a claim for promissory estoppel. Norman v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 471 F.Supp.3d 1225, 1235. CHAPTER 5. DUTIES AND RIGHTS WHERE MORE PERSONS THAN ONE ARE PROMISORS OR PROMISEES OF THE SAME PERFORMANCE § 112. When Two or More Promisors of the Same Performance are Bound Jointly Ct.Fed.Cl.2020. Cit. in case quot. in sup. Contractor that designed a new cooling system for a federal courthouse sued the United States, requesting that the court vacate a final decision issued by the contracting officer for the project, which concluded that plaintiff and a separate contractor that installed COPYRIGHT ©2021 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most