Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

The issue at the heart of this appeal to the Tenth Circuit centered on indemnity stemming from a promise by Martin K. Eby Construction Company’s predecessor to build a water pipeline. Eby engaged another company (the predecessor to Kellogg Brown & Root, LLC), promising to indemnify claims resulting from Eby’s work. While building the water pipeline, Eby accidentally hit a methanol pipeline, causing a leak. At the time, no one knew about the leak. It was discovered over two decades later, and the owner of the methanol pipeline had to pay for the cleanup. The owner of the methanol pipeline sued to recover the expenses from Kellogg and Eby. Kellogg and Eby prevailed, but Kellogg incurred over $2 million in attorneys’ fees and costs. Kellogg invoked Eby’s indemnity promise, suing Eby and its liability insurer, Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. The district court granted summary judgment to Eby and Travelers, leading Kellogg to appeal. To resolve the Kellogg-Eby portion of the appeal, the Tenth Circuit focused on the enforceability of Eby’s promise of indemnity: the promise was broad enough to cover the pipeline owner’s claims against Kellogg for its inaction after Eby caused the leak, but the indemnity clause was not conspicuous; thus, it was unenforceable. The Kellogg-Travelers appeal turned on Kellogg’s argument that Travelers’ insurance policy covered liabilities assumed by its insured (Eby). The Tenth Circuit concluded that because the indemnity clause was unenforceable, it is as if Eby never agreed to assume Kellogg’s liabilities. In the absence of Eby’s assumption of Kellogg’s liabilities, Travelers did not insure Kellogg. Accordingly, Kellogg was not entitled to indemnity from Eby or insurance coverage from Travelers, and Eby and Travelers were entitled to summary judgment. View "Martin K. Eby Construction v. OneBeacon Insurance" on Justia Law

In 2006, Robert and Teresa James brought a lot in a rural subdivision. At the time of the purchase, Chicago Title Insurance Company issued a title insurance policy that insured against loss or damage by reason of “lack of right of access to and from the land.” In 2013, the Jameses sued Chicago Title, contending that the title insurance policy required Chicago Title to provide them “legal” access to their lot. The district court granted summary judgment to Chicago Title, concluding that the Jameses failed to establish that the title insurance policy entitled them to “legal access” to their lot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly granted judgment to Chicago Title on the Jameses’ claim, under the title insurance policy, that they lacked a right of access to their real property, as the language of the policy insured against loss from not having “a right” of access, and the Jameses clearly had a right of access when they bought the lot. View "James v. Chicago Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs DISH Network Corporation and DISH Network LLC sought a declaratory judgment that their commercial general liability and excess liability insurers (collectively the Insurers), Arch Specialty Insurance Company, Arrowood Indemnity Company, Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois, XL Insurance America, Inc., and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., had a duty to defend and indemnify plaintiffs in an underlying patent infringement action. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Insurers, plaintiffs appealed, and the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the Insurers moved again for summary judgment, but on different grounds. The district court granted the Insurers’ motions, and plaintiffs appealed. Finding no reversible error this time, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Dish Network v. Arch Specialty Insurance" on Justia Law

Petitioners Susan and Peter White appealed a superior court order denying their petition for a declaratory judgment that respondent Charles Matthews was covered under a homeowner's insurance policy issues to his mother by respondent Vermont Mutual Insurance Company. Matthews' dog bit Mrs. White while Matthews was staying with friends at the mother's home in Moultonborough. The policy defined an "insured" to include "residents of your household who are… your relatives." Matthews’s mother also owns a home in Naples, Florida, where she lives for approximately half of the year, and where Matthews usually visits only at Christmas. The petitioners and Matthews claim that the Florida residence is Matthews’s mother’s primary residence, but they do not claim that Matthews is a resident of the Florida home. Matthews testified that he lived in Massachusetts for 80% or more of the year. However, he had not changed his voting registration since he first registered to vote when he was eighteen, and he was still registered to vote in Moultonborough (he voted in Moultonborough in the 2012 election, a month before the hearing in this case). Matthews also held a New Hampshire driver’s license and his vehicle was registered in New Hampshire (his decision to register his car in New Hampshire was motivated by his desire to avoid buying automobile insurance, which is required in Massachusetts). Matthews typically notifies his mother in advance of using the Moultonborough house for permission to stay there. Following the 2011 incident involving Matthews' dog, petitioners sought a declaratory judgment that Vermont Mutual was responsible for any damages that might recover from Matthews. After a bench trial, the court denied the petition and the subsequent motion for reconsideration, finding that the policy did not contemplate Matthews as a resident of the Moultonborough house. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's judgment. View "White v. Vermont Mutual Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Petitioners, the West Virginia Investment Management Board (IMB) and the West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board (Board), instituted a declaratory judgment action against the Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company (VALIC) requesting judicial resolution of Petitioners’ entitlement to a full surrender of two annuity contracts without delays in payment or surrender charges. The trial court granted VALIC’s motion for summary judgment, resolving Petitioners’ claims on grounds of standing, the absence of a justiciable controversy, and the lack of ambiguity concerning the language of a policy endorsement in dispute. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court erred in finding that no justiciable controversy existed between the parties and that Petitioners lacked standing in relation to the contracts; and (2) the policy endorsement language under review was of such doubtful meaning that reasonable minds might disagree as to its meaning. View "W. Va. Inv. Mgmt. Bd. v. Variable Annuity Life Ins." on Justia Law

Appellant North River Insurance Company challenged the Court of Chancery’s denial of its request for permanent injunctive relief. This multi-forum litigation concerns policies issued by North River to a safety products company, Mine Safety Appliances Company (MSA). North River issued thirteen policies to MSA covering periods from 1972 through 1986. MSA defended against thousands of personal injury claims allegedly caused by defects in its mine safety equipment. MSA seeks coverage under North River’s policies as well as from several other insurers. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether North River’s coverage under these policies was "triggered" (as a matter of Pennsylvania law), and was being litigated, along with its claims against other insurers in federal and state courts in Pennsylvania, the Delaware Superior Court and in certain later-filed cases in West Virginia. North River requested that the Court of Chancery permanently enjoin MSA from prosecuting the later-filed claims in West Virginia and from assigning to any tort claimants the right to recover under any insurance policy issued by North River to MSA. During the course of this appeal, North River narrowed its focus to the assignment issue. Finding no reversible error to the Court of Chancery's decision, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed. View "The North River Insurance Co. v. Mine Safety Appliances Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Brett Woods and Kathleen Valdes were state employees and representatives of a class of New Mexico state and local government employees who alleged they paid for insurance coverage through payroll deductions and premiums pursuant to a policy issued by Standard Insurance Company (Standard), but did not receive the coverage for which they paid and, in some cases, were denied coverage entirely. Plaintiffs filed suit in New Mexico state court against three defendants: Standard, an Oregon company that agreed to provide the subject insurance coverage; the Risk Management Division of the New Mexico General Services Department (the Division), the state agency that contracted with Standard and was responsible for administering benefits under the policy; and Standard employee Martha Quintana, who Plaintiffs allege was responsible for managing the Division’s account with Standard and for providing account management and customer service to the Division and state employees. Plaintiffs' ninety-one-paragraph complaint, stated causes of action against Standard and the Division for breach of contract and unjust enrichment; against Standard for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and Unfair Practices Act violations; and against Standard and Ms. Quintana for breach of the New Mexico Trade Practices and Fraud Act. The issue this appeal presented for the Tenth Circuit's review centered on whether remand to the state court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) was required under either of two CAFA provisions: the state action provision, which excludes from federal jurisdiction cases in which the primary defendants are states; or the local controversy exception, which requires federal courts to decline jurisdiction where, among other things, there is a local defendant whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by plaintiffs and from whom plaintiffs seek significant relief. The Court concluded that neither provision provided a basis for remand, and therefore reversed the decision of the magistrate judge remanding the case to state court. But because the Tenth Circuit could not determine whether Defendants have established the amount in controversy required to confer federal jurisdiction, the case was remanded to the district court for the resolution of that issue. View "Woods v. Standard Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Appellant North River Insurance Company appealed the Court of Chancery’s denial of its request for permanent injunctive relief. This multi-forum litigation concerned policies issued by North River to a safety products company, Mine Safety Appliances Company (“MSA”). North River issued thirteen policies to MSA covering periods from August 28, 1972 through April 1, 1986. MSA was defending against thousands of personal injury claims allegedly caused by defects in its mine safety equipment. MSA sought coverage under North River’s policies as well as from several other insurers. The issue this case presented for review was whether North River’s coverage under these policies was “triggered” (a matter of Pennsylvania law) was being litigated, along with its claims against other insurers, in federal and state courts in Pennsylvania, the Delaware Superior Court and in certain later-filed cases in West Virginia. North River requested that the Delaware Court of Chancery permanently enjoin MSA from prosecuting the later-filed claims in West Virginia and from assigning to any tort claimants the right to recover under any insurance policy issued by North River to MSA. During the course of this appeal, North River narrowed its focus to the assignment issue. Finding no reversible error in the Court of Chancery's denial, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that decision. View "The North River Insurance Co. v. Mine Safety Appliances Co." on Justia Law

RNT appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment on its claim for breach of insurance contract against RNT, arguing that the trial court erroneously determined that the claim failed in light of the terms of RNT's policy. The court concluded that summary judgment on RNT's claim for breach of insurance contract was properly granted on the basis of the undisputed facts; condition 10(b) of the policy, which terminates an insurer's liability when the loan is paid off or the related mortgage is released; and exclusion 3(a) of the policy, which precludes coverage for defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by RNT. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.View "RNT Holdings v. United Gen. Title Ins." on Justia Law

This case concerned a dispute between an insurance carrier (Plaintiff) and its insured (Defendant) regarding Plaintiff’s obligation to pay underinsured motorist benefits. An arbitration panel concluded that the issue of whether the relevant policy provisions provided coverage for the claim should be resolved under the choice of law rules governing claims sounding in tort, rather than claims sounding in insurance and contract, and therefore, that New Jersey law rather than Connecticut law governed Defendant’s claim for uninsured motorist benefits under the policy. The trial court vacated the arbitration award, and the Appellate Court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Appellate Court, in its opinion adopting the decision of the trial court, properly applied sections 6(2), 188 and 193 of the Restatement (Second), contract choice of law, to determine that Connecticut law governed the claim.View "Gen. Accident Ins. Co. v. Mortara" on Justia Law