Reported Decisions

 

• Spade v Select Comfort Corp, et al.,  Case No. 16-1558, 232 N.J. 504, 2018 WL 1790394 (N.J. Apr. 16, 2018) (holding that a consumer who receives a contract which includes language prohibited by statute but who suffers no monetary or other harm is not an “aggrieved consumer” entitled to a remedy under TCCWNA).
• Simon v Select Comfort Retail Corp., et al., No. 4:14-CV-1136 JAR, (E.D.Mo 2016) Granting summary judgment in favor of defendants and excluding all three of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses in case alleging personal injuries in connection with an alleged product defect.
• Sleepy’s, LLC v Select Comfort Wholesale Corporation et al., No. 07cv4018 (E.D.N.Y 2015), vacated 779 F. 3d 191, 193 (2d Cir 2015) (finding in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s remanded claims of breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, slander per se and unfair competition).
• Gilbert v Select Comfort Corporation, No. 14-2-13959-4 (Super. Ct. King County (Wash.) 2015) (dismissing with prejudice plaintiff’s purported class action complaint alleging over-collection of state sales tax).
• Select Comfort Corporation v Arrowood Indemnity Company, No: 0:13cv02975 (D. Minn 2014) (holding insurer must pay attorneys’ fees plus interest under Morrison rule as insurer breached its duty to defend insured).
• Select Comfort Corporation v Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al., No. 0:13cv02451 (D. Minn 2013) (granting motion for temporary restraining order enjoining defendant’s false advertising and disparaging conduct).
• ​Stearns et al. v Select Comfort Retail Corporation et al., 763 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (granting defendant’s motion to strike and dismiss plaintiff’s class action complaint and denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to file fourth amended complaint).
• Boland v Select Comfort Retail Corporation et al., No. 1:10cv00465 (E.D. Pa. 2010) (dismissing with prejudice plaintiff’s purported class action complaint alleging violations of state consumer protection statutes and breach of contract claims).
• Hall v. Valley Forge Life Insurance Company, et al., 841 So. 2d 851 (La. App. 2003) (affirming summary judgment for insurer and holding that “payment of premium is necessary before claim may be made concerning the reasonableness of any delay”).
• Ozor v. CNA Insurance Company and Valley Forge Life Insurance Company, 2002 WL 31059790 (N.D. Tex. 2002) (holding that “beneficiary’s cause of action under Texas Insurance Code accrued, at the latest, on the date insurer denied beneficiary’s claim for benefits under life insurance policy”).
• Willard v. Valley Forge Life Insurance Company, et al., 218 F.Supp.2d 1197 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (holding that “a good health provision in a life insurance policy, which requires a prospective insured’s health condition remain the same between application and policy delivery dates, is an enforceable condition precedent to coverage, under California law”).
• ​​​Peisach v. Continental Assurance Co., June Term, No. 3663, slip op. at 5 (Pa.Com.Pl. 2002), aff’d, 813 A.2d 915 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002)., (affirming dismissal of unjust enrichment claims where “the clear existence of a contract in the form of the Policy doubtlessly will preclude Plaintiff from proceeding on her unjust enrichment claim”).