Latest 2 Cases: Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Co. v. TVPX ARS, Inc. (Contracts), United States v. Bates (Criminal Law)

Before She Died, “Jane Roe” Said She Was Never Really Pro-Life: Does It Matter?

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the revelation that before she died, Norma McCorvey—the woman who was the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade and who had subsequently become a prominent spokesperson for overturning the decision—said she was never really pro-life after all. Using this example, Dorf explains why, in some ways, the individual plaintiff’s identity does not matter for the purpose of deciding an important legal issue, yet in other ways, the plaintiff’s underlying story can be very important for other reasons.

Read More

Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Co. v. TVPX ARS, Inc.

Docket: 19-11178

Opinion Date: May 26, 2020

Judge: Martin

Areas of Law: Contracts, Insurance Law

In 2018, TVPX filed an amended class action complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia against Genworth, alleging that Genworth violated the terms of one of its life insurance policies by imposing inflated "cost of insurance" (COI) charges on its insureds. Genworth brought this action in district court seeking to enjoin TVPX's Virginia lawsuit, arguing that TVPX's claims were barred by a 2004 agreement settling a prior class action about the same life insurance policies. The district court then granted Genworth's motion to enjoin TVPX's Virginia action, finding that TVPX's complaint was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's order enjoining TVPX's Virginia lawsuit. Although the primary right and duty at issue in TVPX's complaint were also at issue in the settlement, the court held that the record does not support the district court's finding that Genworth's "cost of insurance" (COI) practices remain unchanged since the settlement. The court remanded to the district court for limited discovery on whether Genworth has in any way changed how it calculates and charges COI since the settlement. Finally, the court held that, when read in its entirety, the Pre-Settlement Policy Administration does not constitute a preservation of rights, but instead clarifies that Genworth may continue administering its policies in the same manner that it did before the settlement.

United States v. Bates

Docket: 18-12533

Opinion Date: May 26, 2020

Judge: Huck

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, assaulting a federal officer, discharging a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court joined five sister circuits and held that an assault conviction in violation of 18 U.S.C. 111(b) qualifies as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 924(c); the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence relevant to defendant's self-defense theory at trial; the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction on the section 111 and 924(c) counts; defendant's prior Georgia convictions for possession with intent to distribute marijuana qualified as predicate offenses for both the Armed Career Criminal Act and the Sentencing Guidelines; the district court did not clearly err in denying defendant a two-level sentencing reduction for acceptance of responsibility by pleading guilty to the possession charges; defendant's 360-month sentence was substantively reasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion; and Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), does not require vacating defendant's conviction for possessing a firearm as a felon.