Whether it be a First Amendment case or a mesothelioma injury, a plaintiff must plead
facts alleging injury and causation in order for a court to hear the case.
Not exact matches
In the first Complaint discussed in Animal Law Coalition's reports below, the court found the plaintiffs did not
allege facts showing the RICO violations proximately caused their
injuries.
CREW had
alleged that it had standing because the president's allegedly unethical behavior had forced it to divert resources to this lawsuit, but Daniels found that this is not enough to show an
injury in
fact.
The policy at issue in this case, was crafted in such a way that in order to engage the insurer's duty to defend, it required the communication, during the policy period, by a third party, of an intention to hold the Jesuits responsible for damages.36 In this case, it was accepted by the parties, that if the claims were made within the temporal limits of the Policy, the duty to defend would have been engaged as the claims
allege injuries that would fall within the policy.37 In
fact the Court found one of the claims was made within the policy period and therefore did trigger the insurer's duty to defend.38 The rest of the claims however were found not to have been communicated during the policy period and, as a result, the insurer did not have a duty to defend the actions.39 The determination of whether a policy will be «claims - made» or «occurrence based» will depend on many factors.
It's not uncommon for insurance companies to
allege that accident victims are feigning
injuries on account of the
fact that soft tissue
injuries are subtle.
On August 27, 2015, the Ohio Supreme Court resolved one aspect of this issue under Ohio law by holding in Felix v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2015 - Ohio - 3430, that plaintiffs
alleging violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA) must show that all members of a putative class suffered
injury or «damage in
fact» as a result of the challenged conduct.
In
fact the police officer noted «no
injuries consistent with the
alleged assault».
Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger interviewed M.S., and in
fact on the day of the
alleged assault, M.S. had sustained
injuries for which he attended his doctor.
According to the
facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the lawsuit
alleges that the defendant negligently failed to respond to an assistance call made by the patient, resulting in her suffering
injuries in a fall while she attempted to use the bathroom unassisted.
It is my experience as a lawyer representing car accident victims that ICBC and other insurance companies regularly deny all the
facts alleged by an
injury claimant in a lawsuit with little or no explanation.
They attempted to distinguish Corson's situation from other cases that followed Napier, focusing on the
fact that Corson's
injuries were the result of
alleged chemical exposure, not a physical accident.
Nor are there
facts showing how this abstract creature actually suffered an actual
injury in
fact from such
alleged conduct.