Tim and Lisa Parker’s case has two major issues. First, they wish to inquire whether they are entitled to payment from their insurer, American Security Insurance Company, under the policy issued to Lisa. Secondly, they wish to determine whether or not the appeal by, Lafayette Insurance Co. with regards to Plaintiffs’ lawsuit against them for the breach of the insurer’s duty of good faith and fair dealing, will be successful.
Concerning the first case, the prohibitions listed in the second Restatement of Contracts in §317(2) (a) will play a major role in the final decision (Stark, 2003). The second case, on the other hand, would require the application of section 3 of the Insurance Act of 2015, which sets a number of nuanced remedies for settling such situations.
First Case: Concerning this case, the decision might be based upon the effect it has on the non-assigning party, otherwise referred to as the obligatory. The second restatement of contracts highlights several provisions, more specifically, in §317(2) (a) which elaborates more on what might transpire in this case. Similar prohibitions can also be found in the uniform commercial code in §2-210. Specifically, these provisions provide that the rights of the buyer in the contract can be assigned in all cases apart from the instances in which the assignment would lead to material changes in the duties of the other party involved in the contract (Stark, 2003). As such, as long as the insurer’s duties do not change as per the original contract, the assignment is therefore valid, which implies that the plaintiff is entitled to payment from the insurer.
Second Case: prior to the current appeal by Tim and Lisa’s insurer, the jury had already decided that the insurer had dealt with their claim in bad faith. Section 3 of the Insurance Act of 2015 proposes an award for damages in cases where the insurer’s bad faith has already been well established (Spokeo, 2016). As such, if this appeal is to be considered about the fact that the court had already previously determined that the insurer had dealt in bad faith with Tim and Lisa Parker, the award for damages previously outlined in the initial case will be applicable, thus nullifying the insurer’s appeal.
In conclusion, the first case might have a good outcome for Tim and Lisa Parker since their claim that they are entitled to payment from the insurer might be sustained. In the second case, Tim and Lisa might also have a good outcome since the insurer had already been proven to have dealt with them in bad faith. As such, the appeal, which rests on the insurer being able to prove that they did, not, might lead to the initial decision of the court being upheld.
M e m o r a n d u m 2
Thomas Crowne’s case’s major issue is the fact that his student loans that amount to over $23,515 are causing increased hardship and make it hard for him to continue paying child support, which amounts to $161 per month and an extra $7254 in medical expenses. In this regard, Thomas Crowne wishes to have his student loans discharged based on hardship.
Concerning the case, the § 523(a) (8), on the bankruptcy code will be applied (Tetzlaff v. Educational Credit Management Corp, 2015). The code essentially elaborates on instances in which loans, such as student loans should be discharged.
According to the United States Constitution, Congress has the authority to institute uniform bankruptcy laws. This has so far grown to prevent one from being discharged from paying their student laws, despite filing for bankruptcy (Tetzlaff v. Educational Credit Management Corp, 2015). In Thomas Crowne’s case, the provision for undue hardship will be the main component within his case. While the provision §523(a)(8) does state that one can be discharged from student loans in cases where the servicing of the loan would cause undue hardship, the law did not define undue hardship (Campbell, 2016). As such, the case would only result in the affirmative that is Thomas Crowne’s loan being discharged, if the definition of undue hardship in the eyes of the court resonates with the Mr Crowne’s current situation.
In conclusion, while the law does provide a provision that would allow Thomas Crowne’s student loan to be discharged based on undue hardship, the case depends entirely on the court’s definition of undue hardship.