<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>USLegal Reporter &#187; Contract</title>
	<atom:link href="http://reporter.uslegal.com/category/contract/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com</link>
	<description>Just another USLegal Blogs weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:47:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Cell Phone Fees Head to Trial</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/06/23/cell-phone-fees-head-to-trial/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/06/23/cell-phone-fees-head-to-trial/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:56:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Antitrust Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/06/23/cell-phone-fees-head-to-trial/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A lawsuit which is part of four coordinated class action lawsuits against cell phone providers, involving early termination fees, has begun arguments in a California court today. At issue is a California law covering liquidated damages. California Civil Code §1671(d), governing how to collect liquidated damages when someone breaks a contract, requires cell phone companies [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A lawsuit which is part of four coordinated class action lawsuits against cell phone providers, involving early termination fees, has begun arguments in a California court today. At issue is a California law covering liquidated damages. California Civil Code §1671(d), governing how to collect liquidated damages when someone breaks a contract, requires cell phone companies to prove that the fee reasonably reflects the money they lost by losing the customer. If the FCC decides to regulate early termination fees, it is possible that the fees would become part of the cell phone companies&#8217; rate structure, which federal law pre-empts from state regulation.The first case, against Sprint, resulted in a pro-Sprint verdict. Sprint&#8217;s vice president of marketing testified that the company set its early termination fees by comparing the rates competitors used to keep more customers from leaving. The current case being heard is against Verizon.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202422467192&#38;pos=ataglance">http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202422467192&amp;pos=ataglance</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/06/23/cell-phone-fees-head-to-trial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Denies Katrina Homeowners Insurance Coverage</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/08/02/court-denies-katrina-homeowners-insurance-coverage/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/08/02/court-denies-katrina-homeowners-insurance-coverage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:38:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/08/02/court-denies-katrina-homeowners-insurance-coverage/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that hurricane Katrina victims whose homes were destroyed when levees broke are not entitled to coverage under their homeowner insurance policies. The policies contained exclusions for coverage of water damage due to flooding.
The decision overruled a lower court decision that found the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that hurricane Katrina victims whose homes were destroyed when levees broke are not entitled to coverage under their homeowner insurance policies. The policies contained exclusions for coverage of water damage due to flooding.</p>
<p>The decision overruled a lower court decision that found the insurance policies&#8217; exclusions were ambiguous, since they didn&#8217;t distinguish between flooding due to acts of God and those caused by man. The appeals panel found the distinction between the cause of flooding irrelevant and found the policies to clearly exclude all water damage due to flooding. Today&#8217;s ruling is expected to save insurers $1 billion.</p>
<p>Source:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20093139/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20093139/ </a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/08/02/court-denies-katrina-homeowners-insurance-coverage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Allstate Settles Mississippi Katrina Claims</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/06/26/allstate-settles-mississippi-katrina-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/06/26/allstate-settles-mississippi-katrina-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:02:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Della Sellers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/06/26/allstate-settles-mississippi-katrina-claims/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Allstate Insurance Company announced Monday its agreement to settle claims filed by Mississippi policy holders for coverage of damage to their homes caused by Hurricane Katrina. The insureds contended in their lawsuits that Allstate wrongfully refused coverage of damage resulting from storm surge, claiming instead that the policies only covered wind damage.
Neither Allstate nor attorneys [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Allstate Insurance Company announced Monday its agreement to settle claims filed by Mississippi policy holders for coverage of damage to their homes caused by Hurricane Katrina. The insureds contended in their lawsuits that Allstate wrongfully refused coverage of damage resulting from storm surge, claiming instead that the policies only covered wind damage.</p>
<p>Neither Allstate nor attorneys for the policyholders have disclosed the terms of the agreement. An Allstate spokesman, Mike Siemienas, stated that Allstate had settled 99% of its Mississippi claims relating to Hurricane Katrina.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070626/NEWS/706260367/1001/news">http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070626/NEWS/706260367/1001/news</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/06/26/allstate-settles-mississippi-katrina-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mississippi Attorney General Files Suit Against State Farm Over Katrina Claims</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/06/12/mississippi-attorney-general-files-suit-against-state-farm-over-katrina-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/06/12/mississippi-attorney-general-files-suit-against-state-farm-over-katrina-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:53:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>carrie</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/06/12/mississippi-attorney-general-files-suit-against-state-farm-over-katrina-claims/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood filed a lawsuit on Monday against State Farm Fire and Casualty Company for an alleged breach of contract. Hood claims the insurance company has failed to honor a settlement of claims stemming from damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. 
Earlier in the year, Hood dropped a lawsuit against State Farm for it&#8217;s failure to cover [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood filed a lawsuit on Monday against State Farm Fire and Casualty Company for an alleged breach of contract. Hood claims the insurance company has failed to honor a settlement of claims stemming from damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. </p>
<p>Earlier in the year, Hood dropped a lawsuit against State Farm for it&#8217;s failure to cover damage caused by storm surge. He did so after State Farm had reached a $50 million settlement with more than 30,000 policyholders. However, a federal judge has refused to sign off on the settlement saying State Farm needs to provide more information regarding those who would benefit from the deal and how much money policyholders would be guaranteed.</p>
<p>The state is now seeking compensatory and punitive damages. </p>
<p>Sources: <a href="http://www.ago.state.ms.us/pressreleases/statefarm/sfbreach.pdf">http://www.ago.state.ms.us/pressreleases/statefarm/sfbreach.pdf</a> , <a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1631550,00.html">http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1631550,00.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/06/12/mississippi-attorney-general-files-suit-against-state-farm-over-katrina-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
