Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant issued a motorcycle insurance policy to Brian McCallum that contained accident and healthcare coverage. The policy included a provision for subrogation of payments made for any injury caused by a third party. After McCallum was involved in a collision with Margarita Saldivar, Appellant paid McCallum's medical expenses. Appellant then filed a complaint alleging Saldivar's negligence and seeking to receive subrogation benefits from Saldivar. The circuit court rejected Appellant's argument that it was entitled to subrogation benefits from Saldivar and granted summary judgment in Saldivar's favor. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) the circuit court erred in its interpretation of the relevant statutes; and (2) Appellant properly sought general "subrogation benefits from the third party,'" as permitted by Ark. Stat. Ann. 23-79-146. View "Progressive Halcyon Ins. v. Saldivar" on Justia Law

When Cody Metheny underwent brain surgery, the physician (Doctor) mistakenly operated on the wrong side of his brain. Fifteen months later, Cody's parents (the Methenys) learned tissue had been removed from the wrong side of Cody's brain. The Methenys filed a direct-action suit, alleging medical negligence on the part of Hospital where Doctor practiced and against Hospital's liability-insurance carrier (Insurer). The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Methenys. Insurer appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in (1) failing to instruct the jury in a manner that would allow it to apportion liability among it and certain physicians who were sued in a prior case but ultimately settled; (2) refusing to allow Insurer to present evidence of fault attributable to the settling physicians; and (3) denying Insurer's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict where the evidence supporting Cody's future damages was based on improperly bundled calculations. The Methenys cross-appealed the circuit court's order reducing the jury's verdict from $20 million to $11 million. The Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal and cross-appeal, holding that the circuit court did not err in its judgment. View "ProAssurance Indem. Co. v. Metheny" on Justia Law

This matter began when the state insurance commissioner filed a petition for receivership against Signature Life Insurance Company of America, which had become insolvent. The commissioner was appointed receiver and began to rehabilitate Signature. The successor to the commissioner then filed a complaint against Frank Whitbeck, the sole shareholder and director of Signature, who obtained the loans from the company resulting in its insolvency, and several LLCs, all of which were owned by Whitbeck. This action was settled. The circuit court subsequently approved a rehabilitation plan for Signature. Due to Whitbeck's failure to perform under the rehabilitation plan, the receiver filed a petition for order of liquidation and for foreclosure and replevin. The circuit court entered an order of liquidation and a foreclosure and replevin decree ordering the sale of the real property. Whitbeck filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the receiver's alleged malfeasance and nonfeasance extinguished and released Defendants from any further liability. The circuit court dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Whitbeck's claims were barred by the claim preclusion facet of res judicata, and the circuit court did not err in dismissing Whitbeck's action. View "Whitbeck v. Bradford" on Justia Law

This case arose out of a personal-injury action brought by Appellant against Appellees, an insurance company and two people who were involved with Appellant in a three-vehicle automobile accident. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellant and against one of the individual appellees. Appellant's son received a verdict against the other individual appellee. Appellant subsequently filed a motion for new trial based on jury misconduct, insufficient damages, and a verdict contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. The trial court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) juror affidavits attached to Appellant's motion for new trial that asserted that the jury considered Appellant's employer-provided health insurance in calculating his damages did not fall within the extraneous-information exception of Ark. R. Evid. 606(b); and (2) the record was inadequate to address Appellant's argument that the jury's calculation of damages was insufficient. View "Blake v. Shellstrom" on Justia Law

Appellant was involved in an automobile accident with Appellee. After litigation involving Appellant, Appellee, Appellant's insurance carrier, and Appellee's insurer, the circuit court found that Appellant was entitled to an offset or credit and allowed her to file a satisfaction of judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to preserve for appellate review his arguments that (i) the circuit court erred in allowing Appellee to file a satisfaction of judgment, (ii) the court erred in not sustaining Appellant's objection to the satisfaction of judgment, and (iii) the filed satisfaction of judgment was void; (2) Appellant's argument that the order of the circuit court should be reversed because the circuit court lacked authority to grant an offset was without merit; (3) the circuit court erred by misstating a sum paid by Appellee's insurance company, but the error was harmless; and (4) Appellant was precluded from raising the argument on appeal that the circuit court erred in depriving him of court costs. View "Brown v. Lee" on Justia Law

Sixty-six plaintiffs filed the underlying lawsuit in Tennessee against Morrow Valley Land Company and Ben Cain (Appellees) and others, alleging that Defendants owned and operated a concentrated animal-feeding operation that constituted a nuisance and a continuing trespass. After Appellees' insurer, Scottsdale Insurance Company, refused to provide defense or indemnification coverage under its insurance policy with Appellees, Appellees filed a petition for declaratory judgment in an Arkansas circuit court against Scottsdale and seeking damages for breach-of-contract claims. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Appellees, concluding that Scottsdale had a duty to defend Appellees as its insured in the action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that the pollution exclusion provision in the insurance policy was ambiguous and that Appellees were entitled to summary judgment on the duty to defend because there was a possibility that the injury or damage may fall within the policy coverage.

Employee was injured in an automobile accident while working for Employer. Employer had a state-certified workers' compensation plan in effect that provided coverage to Employee, and some of Employee's medical bills were paid by the workers' compensation carrier. Employee had a policy with State Farm that included no-fault medical coverage. State Farm, however, denied coverage to Employee under a policy exclusion that denied coverage for an insured if any workers' compensation law applied to the insured's bodily injury. Employee filed an action against State Farm, seeking recovery of benefits under the no-fault medical provision. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law where, in accordance with previous precedent, the exclusion clearly applied in all scenarios where workers' compensation benefits either had been paid in whole or in part or could be paid in whole or in part.

Appellees executed a credit application and retail installment contract (RIC) for the purchase of an automobile. The application contained an arbitration agreement. The RIC provided an option for Appellees to purchase credit-life insurance coverage with Insurer. Appellees subsequently filed a class action against Insurer seeking the refund of unearned credit-life insurance premiums from the date they paid off their loan until the original maturity date of the loan. Insurer filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the terms of the arbitration agreement. The circuit court denied the motion after finding that the dispute was governed by Ark. Code Ann. 16-108-201(b), thereby preventing Insurer from compelling Appellees to arbitrate a dispute under an insurance policy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the McCarran-Ferguson Act did not allow the Federal Arbitration Act to preempt section 16-108-201(b), and section 16-108-201(b) prohibited arbitration under these facts; and (2) the principles of equitable estoppel did apply to allow Insurer to compel arbitration.

In 2009, a car collided with a bus driven by Angela Austin, causing several passengers' deaths and serious injuries to others. Austin drove the bus as a transport vehicle for a nonprofit called Focus. Focus was insured by appellant Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, who filed a complaint for interpleader indicating its willingness to pay insurance-policy proceeds in the total amount of $1 million as per its policy and requesting to be discharged from further liability. The circuit court entered an order interpleading appellant's funds. Appellees, the injured passengers and administrators of the deceased passengers' estates, filed counterclaims against appellant, alleging that Focus negligently failed to restrict Austin from using her cell phone while driving and arguing they were entitled to a judgment against appellant for a share of the interpleaded funds. Appellant filed a motion for declaratory judgment and a motion to dismiss, stating it had paid the full amount as stated in the insurance policy. The circuit court denied appellants' motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly concluded that the language of the policy was ambiguous.

After appellant Stephanie Riley, who was insured by State Farm, was involved in a car accident, Riley settled with the tortfeasor's insurer, GEICO. Riley asserted that State Farm filed a lien on her settlement before it knew whether she would be made whole by the settlement. After taking her case to trial court, Riley appealed with a Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b) certification the dismissal of count one of her amended petition for declaratory judgment and complaint, which sought a declaratory judgment that appellee State Farm had failed to establish a legal lien or right to subrogation under Arkansas law. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the circuit court erred in interpreting Ark. Code Ann. 23-89-207 and the state's subrogation law. The subrogation lien cannot arise, or attach, until the insured has received the settlement proceeds or damage award and until there is a judicial determination that the insured has been made whole.