Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a utility-locating service, USIC, in an action brought by Spire, a gas company, and its insurers, seeking full indemnification from USIC, as well as a declaratory judgment that USIC would be liable for all future settlements as well, without regard to fault. The court held that, under Missouri's anti-indemnification law, Mo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 433.100.1, Spire could not use the parties' contract to seek indemnification for its own negligence or wrongdoing. The court explained that, even if Spire is right that "construction work" does not ordinarily include marking and flagging the location of gas lines, it makes no difference here because Missouri has adopted a broader definition of "construction work." View "Spire Missouri, Inc. v. USIC Locating Services, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Defendant, which terminated one of the life insurance policies at issue in this case because the policy owner had failed to make a payment, had no right to terminate the policies without complying with the newly codified statutory protections against termination.In 2013, protections to shield consumers from losing life insurance coverage because of a missed premium payment went into effect. The protections were codified in Cal. Ins. Code 10113.71 and 10113.72. Thereafter, Defendant terminated the subject life insurance policy. Plaintiffs brought this action arguing that Defendant had no right to terminate the policies, which predated sections 10113.71 and 10113.72, without complying with the sections. The court of appeal concluded that the newly codified statutory protections against termination did not apply because they appeared to affect only policies issued or delivered after the sections' effective date. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 apply to all life insurance policies in force when these two sections went into effect, regardless of when the policies were originally issued. View "McHugh v. Protective Life Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The bankruptcy trustee sued Cornerstone on the insured's behalf, alleging that Cornerstone breached its duty to defend the insured by failing to timely file an answer to a complaint filed against him. The insurance policy was in effect when the insured's car collided with another vehicle.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Cornerstone on the trustee's claim because Cornerstone had no duty to defend when the insured did not strictly comply with a condition precedent to coverage. In this case, the insured was required to strictly comply with the policy provision mandating that he promptly forward the legal papers he received to Cornerstone, but he failed to do so. Furthermore, the actions of the claims representative did not waive the policy's requirement that the insured promptly forward any legal papers to Cornerstone, nor did they estop Cornerstone from denying coverage based on noncompliance. View "Dowden v. Cornerstone National Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Westfield Insurance in an action seeking a declaratory judgment that it owed no obligations to Advanced Auto, Advanced Auto's employee, or their insurer, Carolina Casualty. The court agreed with the district court that neither the employee nor Advanced Auto was an "insured" under the policy that Westfield Insurance issued to Westfield Insurance's insured, Worldwide. In this case, when Worldwide turned over the truck to McNeilus, Worldwide had no control over who was driving the truck until McNeilus finished its work and returned the truck to Worldwide. View "Westfield Insurance Co. v. Carolina Casualty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that Selective denied insurance coverage in bad faith and the district court's award of taxable costs and prejudgment interest. In this case, Selective sought a declaration of no coverage for the insured's hailstorm-damaged property, alleging fraud by misrepresentation and breach of contract. The insured counterclaimed and later added a claim for bad faith denial of benefits under Minn. Stat. 604.18, which would entitle him to taxable costs. A jury found in favor of the insured and a panel of appraisers assessed damages. The court concluded that the district court did not err in allowing the insured's section 604.18 claim to proceed; there was no error in awarding taxable costs under section 604.18, subdivision 2(a), based on the district court's determination that no reasonable insurer would have relied on any of Selective's proposed bases to deny defendant's hail claim for fraud; and there was no error in the district court's award of prejudgment interest. View "Selective Insurance Company of South Carolina v. Sela" on Justia Law

In 2006, Moore, an Indiana-based insurance broker, advised Mathis, an Alabama surgeon, to replace his Standard disability insurance policy with a MetLife disability-insurance policy with higher limits that had occupational disability coverage, like the Standard policy. The MetLife policy did not actually provide occupational disability coverage but provided total disability coverage only if Mathis was not gainfully employed and provided residual disability coverage only under various limitations. Mathis became disabled in 2017. Neck and arm problems prevented him from performing some of his duties. He underwent surgery but could no longer work at his usual level; his income decreased. He left his practice in March 2018 and began working for a device manufacturer in a nonsurgical capacity. MetLife paid Mathis residual disability benefits, April-August 2017, then determined he was not entitled to residual disability benefits. The policy lapsed.Mathis sued Moore and Source Brokerage for negligent procurement and brought a breach of contract claim against MetLife. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claims, applying Alabama law, rather than Indiana law. Mathis’s contributory negligence in failing to read the new policy and the Alabama statute of limitations barred the negligence claims. The court rejected the contract claim because Mathis failed to comply with his contractual obligation to submit proof of loss for any period after September 2017. View "Mathis v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against OSIC after OSIC denied their claim seeking coverage under plaintiffs' policy for damage caused by a hailstorm. The district court ultimately granted OSIC summary judgment.The Fifth Circuit certified the following questions to the Supreme Court of Texas: (1) Whether the concurrent cause doctrine applies where there is any non-covered damage, including "wear and tear" to an insured property, but such damage does not directly cause the particular loss eventually experienced by plaintiffs; (2) If so, whether plaintiffs alleging that their loss was entirely caused by a single, covered peril bear the burden of attributing losses between that peril and other, non-covered or excluded perils that plaintiffs contend did not cause the particular loss; and (3) If so, whether plaintiffs can meet that burden with evidence indicating that the covered peril caused the entirety of the loss (that is, by implicitly attributing one hundred percent of the loss to that peril). View "Frymire Home Services, Inc. v. Ohio Security Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In the underlying action, a citrus grove owner filed suit against defendant in Florida state court, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and an equitable accounting. Almost a year later, and two days after finding out that defendant had an insurance policy issued by Travelers, the owner moved to amend the complaint to add a claim for negligence. After the motion was granted, Travelers disclaimed coverage. In state court litigation, the owner and defendant entered into a settlement agreement.Travelers filed this declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that, based on the insurance policy's provision, it had not duty to defend or indemnify defendant against the owner's claims. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Travelers. The court concluded that, because the insurance policy excluded coverage for the damages alleged in the owner's amended state court complaint, Travelers had no duty to defend or indemnify, and the Coblentz agreement is unenforceable for that reason. View "The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut v. Richard McKenzie & Sons, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior opinion and substituted the following opinion.In this insurance coverage dispute, at issue is who counts as an "employee" under the Texas Anti-Indemnity Act (TAIA). The Fifth Circuit concluded that Zurich was not required to file a cross-appeal and thus dismissed the cross-appeal. The court also concluded that the Maxim Policy does not assign Maxim's rights to Zurich, and thus Maxim can pursue this claim against Zurich under the Berkel Policy.The court certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Texas: Whether the employee exception to the TAIA, Texas Insurance Code 151.103, allows additional insured coverage when an injured worker brings a personal injury claim against the additional insured (indemnitee), and the worker and the indemnitee are deemed "co-employees" of the indemnitor for purposes of the TWCA. View "Maxim Crane Works, LP v. Zurich American Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Rodenburg purchased a Commercial Umbrella Liability Policy from Cincinnati. In the underlying action, a plaintiff filed suit against Rodenburg, asserting several theories including wrongful garnishment, tort-based claims, and violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Rodenburg filed a claim under the policy for coverage of the underlying lawsuit, but Cincinnati denied coverage.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Cincinnati, concluding that the policy did not provide coverage for the underlying lawsuit and Cincinnati had no duty to defend Rodenburg under the policy. In this case, the underlying complaint alleged "personal and advertising injury" that was not "caused by an 'occurrence.'" The court explained that any potential liability arose either directly or indirectly from conduct that was alleged to violate the FDCPA, however, and was thus excluded from coverage by the Violation of Statutes Exclusion. Therefore, Cincinnati did not breach its contractual duty to defend Rodenburg. View "Rodenburg LLP v. Cincinnati Insurance Co." on Justia Law