American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
559 F.3d 1046 | Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 2009
Holding Summary
The court reversed the district court's denial of preliminary injunction, finding ATA likely to succeed on FAAA preemption claims because many concession agreement provisions are not genuinely responsive to motor vehicle safety.
Many provisions are not genuinely responsive to motor vehicle safety.
Related Cases
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers
A premises owner that contracts for work performance and provides workers' compensation insurance to contractors' employees qualifies as a statutory employer entitled to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act.
Lee Lewis Construction, Inc. v. Harrison
A general contractor owes a duty of care to a subcontractor's employee for fall protection when it retains actual control over safety measures, and the evidence sufficiently supported findings of negligence and gross negligence.
Rory v. Continental Insurance
Unambiguous contractual limitations periods in insurance policies must be enforced as written unless they violate law or public policy; judicial assessments of reasonableness cannot override clear contract terms.
Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London
A CGL policy's contractual liability exclusion bars coverage for breach of contract claims when the insured's only liability arises from contractual obligations assumed in the underlying contract, and the insured-contract exception does not restore coverage.
The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority
An insurance policy's additional insured endorsement covering injuries "caused, in whole or in part" by the named insured's acts requires proximate causation, not mere "but for" causation, and does not cover injuries caused solely by the additional insured's negligence.
Continental Casualty Co. v. Rapid-American Corp.
An insurer's duty to defend under a CGL policy is triggered when complaints allege covered occurrences, even if latent injuries from asbestos exposure manifest after the policy period, and pollution exclusions do not apply to occupational asbestos inhalation injuries.