Supreme Court Clarifies Diversity Jurisdiction Standard

Posted on February 24, 2010 by Kelley Drye

In a unanimous decision Tuesday in Hertz v. Friend, -- U.S. --, No. 08-1107, 2010 WL 605601 (Feb. 23, 2010), the Supreme Court clarified the test federal courts should apply to determine a corporation’s citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, holding that corporations are citizens of the state of their “nerve center” – usually their corporate headquarters – not of any state where a plurality of their business activity occurs.

As explained in a recent Kelley Drye client advisory, the Hertz decision resolves years of uncertainty about how to determine a corporation’s “principal place of business” for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Numerous circuits, including the Ninth Circuit, have applied the so-called “total activity” test, which assessed the amount of the corporation’s activity in each state and deemed the corporation a citizen of any state in which its activity was “significantly larger” or “substantially predominates” over its activity in other states. This test left many national companies, including Hertz, unable to remove state-court class actions to federal court in populous states such as California, where they are not headquartered but do a large amount of business. The Hertz decision rejects the “total activity” test and adopts a simpler test, applied in the Seventh Circuit, known as the “nerve center” test. Under this approach, a corporation’s “principal place of business” is “the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities… [which] should normally be the place where the corporation maintains its headquarters.”

The Court’s decision should be welcome news to corporate defendants, as it will provide greater certainty and predictability about where major litigation affecting multi-state businesses will be litigated, and is likely to limit the need for costly jurisdictional discovery in many cases going forward.
 

Tags:

REMINDER: New Credit Card Regulations Take Effect Today; Gift and Debit Card Rules to Follow

Posted on February 22, 2010 by Kelley Drye

Major provisions of a new law related to credit and gift cards take effect today. The Credit CARD Act, which was signed by President Obama in May 2009, marked the culmination of several legislative efforts to reform certain practices of card issuers. The law provisions related to credit cards, discussed in this Kelley Drye client advisory, are comprehensive and include new restrictions and requirements related to, among other things, rates, fees, billing and payment practices, disclosures and marketing, as well as additional rules specific to young consumers and college students.

The Act directed the Federal Reserve to develop implementation guidance and requirements, which were finalized on January 12, 2010. While most credit card issuers have been working for several months to comply with the Act, the Fed rules provide further detailed guidance. For example, the rules outline factors issuers should consider when determining a consumer’s ability to repay.

Notably, the Fed rules impact Regulation Z and, therefore, do not relate to debit card overdraft fees. Those fees fall under Regulation E, which is subject to a separate ongoing rulemaking process.

Nor do the portions of the CARD Act that take effect today relate to gift cards. Another Fed rulemaking to provide guidance related to gift cards is underway. Those Fed rules should be finalized soon, and together with the gift card provisions of the Act will take effect in August 2010. We will keep you posted on further developments.
 

Tags: , , ,

Recent Decisions Find In Favor of Insurance Coverage for "Blast Faxes"

Posted on February 9, 2010 by Kelley Drye

Numerous class action suits have been brought over the past several years under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) against entities that fax unsolicited advertisements (so-called “blast faxes”) to individuals and businesses.  Companies facing such suits in turn have sought insurance coverage under their comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) policies for costs incurred defending TCPA suits, and for indemnification of any liability.

While coverage disputes in blast faxing cases have historically yielded mixed results, a series of recent rulings have tilted the scales in favor of policyholders.  For example, the Florida Supreme Court decided on January 28, 2010 in Penzer v. Transportation Ins. Co., No. SC08-2068, 2010 WL 308043, that a standard CGL policy provided coverage for a suit brought under TCPA for alleged blast fax activities.  While other recent decisions have yielded similar results, Penzer is significant because it held that the plain language of the insurance policy compels coverage.

Despite the holding in Penzer, insurers will likely use the lack of unanimity among courts, and the potential for inconsistent results in jurisdictions yet to address the issue, as a basis to deny claims going forward.  Policyholders would be well served to not take these denials at face value, but rather should demand the coverage to which they are entitled.

A client advisory prepared by Kelley Drye & Warren LLP’s Insurance Recovery Group summarizes recent coverage decisions regarding blast faxing, including the Penzer decision, and discusses the implications of those cases for policyholders.

Tags: , ,