We have previously blogged about Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. 21-908, a Supreme Court case concerning the scope of the fraud exception to the dischargeability of debts in bankruptcy. Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code exempts...more
In Texas, and as a general rule, only the four corners of the policy and the four corners of the petition against the insured are relevant in deciding whether the duty to defend applies. Richards v. State Farm Lloyds,...more
In Rotkiske v. Klemm, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to do what many plaintiffs’ attorneys have dreamed of for years: effectively expand the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations by applying the “discovery rule” to...more
This article explores possible measures that parties to commercial transactions and their attorneys can take to help ensure greater contract certainty when fraud claims of one type or another are not barred by the parol...more
In 1935, the California Supreme Court in Bank of America National Trust and Savings Ass’n v. Pendergrass prohibited a borrower from introducing external or parol evidence to demonstrate fraud in connection with an agreement...more
The California Supreme Court has removed a legal barrier for litigants seeking to invalidate contracts on the basis of fraud. Overruling a 75-year old decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the parol evidence rule does...more