Legal Briefs

Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Stedman
Facts
At issue is the fact that a person named Stedman drew a number of forged checks. The money belonged to the American Lung Association. However, Stedman appropriated the money for herself to the tune of about $130,000. The American Lung Association had an insurance policy to cover losses of this nature, at least to a degree. To that end, Traveler’s covered the losses of the American Lung Association (Court Listener, 2018).
Issue
The issue in this case is the fact that Travelers (the insurer of the ALA’s funds) could go against Stedman personally for the checks and money that were stolen. Because Travelers lost the money on the insurance payout, they wanted to recover the money from Stedman, as that is the person who stole the funds (Court Listener, 2018).
Decision
Part of the case involved the fact that Merrill Lynch, a co-defendant that faced liability for the funds alongside Stedman, won on some of the checks (Court Listener, 2018).
Reasons
It was generally held that the issuing bank, more than anyone, was responsible for honoring (or not honoring) the checks, even with the ill intentions and behavior of Ms. Stedman. The group two checks were a blended verdict. The crossclaim was ordered when it came to the contribution and breach of presentment warranties. However, the claim related to the indemnity on those same group two checks were denied. Also relevant was the burden of the depositing bank. That depositing bank has to ensure that the presenter and the relevant endorsement were in order (Court Listener, 2018).
VonHoldt Jr. v. Barba & Barba Construction
Facts
The plaintiff hired the defendant to do a multi-level addition to a single family residence in Glenview, Illinois. The projected size of the addition was to be 3,200 square feet. This was in addition to the existing structure, which was about 2,300 square feet. The addition was seemingly completed. However, the homeowner found a number of ostensible flaws and other issues with the finished product. This included deflections in the floors. This was partially hidden by the carpet. However, it was discovered nonetheless (FindLaw, 2018).
Issue
The primary issue is whether the house and its construction was in violation of a warranty of habitability. Meaning, there was a question as to the liability that the construction company had, if any, regarding the flaws in the construction. In short, there was a question as to whether the implied warranty clause of construction projects like this one was violated (FindLaw, 2018).
Decision
It was clearly decided that a cause of action existed. However, there was also a question as to whether too much time passed before a claim was brought. The reason this was an issue is that more than ten years passed between the time the project was completed and when the action was brought. It was decided that the passage of 11 years precluded recovery (FindLaw, 2018).
Reason
The reason for the case, as can be seen fairly clearly above, is that too much time passed between the completion of the project and the bringing of the claim. It was close in that the completion of the project and the taking of possession were not the same. However, the plaintiff did not prevail due to the deadline passing (FindLaw, 2018).
References
Court Listener. (2018). Travelers Indem. Co. v. Stedman, 895 F. Supp. 742 – CourtListener.com.
Court Listener. Retrieved 11 February 2018, from https://www.courtlistener.com
/opinion/1570449/travelers-indem-co-v-stedman/
FindLaw. (2018). FindLaw's Supreme Court of Illinois case and opinions. FindLaw. Retrieved
11 February 2018, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-supreme-court/1056181.html