Reverse False Claim Requires "Established" Obligation to Pay
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 12.15.16
On December 13, 2016, the Fifth Circuit, reversing the district court, held in U.S. ex rel. Simoneaux v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co that the 2009 amendments to the FCA did not abrogate its prior precedent holding that reverse false claims liability did not extend to potential or contingent obligations to pay unassessed government fines or penalties. Agreeing with both the defendant and, notably, the United States, the court concluded that, while the 2009 amendments clarified that the amount of the obligation need not be “fixed,” the duty to pay had to be “established” before liability could attach.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 06.01.26
California Court Upholds Insurer’s Duty to Defend After Covered Claim Is Dismissed
On April 30, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a significant ruling in an insurance coverage dispute between a commercial general liability insurer and its policyholder. The decision addresses several critical issues in insurance law, including the scope and continuity of the duty to defend and the standard for insurer reimbursement of defense costs in mixed-claim actions. The court ruled largely in favor of the insured, SVO Building One, LLC ("SVO"), and the matter now heads toward settlement or trial on SVO's remaining counterclaims.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.26
California Assembly Passes AB 1776, Sending Major Antitrust Bill to the Senate
Client Alert | 5 min read | 05.29.26
Clover Insurance v. HHS: S.D. of Georgia Holds 20 Star Ratings Measures Unlawful
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.29.26
