Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves Ferrellgas Partners L.P. and its subsidiaries (collectively "Ferrellgas") and Zurich American Insurance Company ("Zurich"). Ferrellgas had an insurance policy with Zurich, which included a provision for the advancement of defense costs for litigation. Ferrellgas was involved in a separate lawsuit with Eddystone Rail Company, LLC ("Eddystone") over a breach of contract. Ferrellgas sought to have Zurich cover the defense costs for the Eddystone litigation under their insurance policy.In the lower court, the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, Ferrellgas filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaratory relief obligating Zurich to advance defense costs for the Eddystone litigation. Zurich also filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that it had no obligation to advance defense costs. The Superior Court denied Ferrellgas' motion and granted Zurich's motion, finding that the Eddystone litigation was excluded from coverage under the Zurich policy.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed the decision of the Superior Court. The Supreme Court found that the Eddystone litigation was a claim seeking relief for a breach of contract that occurred after the commencement of the Run-Off Coverage Period in the Zurich policy. As such, Zurich had no duty to advance defense costs for this matter due to the Run-Off Exclusion in the policy. The court also found that Ferrellgas' appeal was timely filed. View "Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. v. Zurich American Insurance Company" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over who should pay for the personal injury protection (PIP) benefits of Justin Childers, who was severely injured in a car accident. Initially, Childers' PIP benefits were covered by American Fellowship Mutual Insurance Company, but the company was declared insolvent in 2013. The Michigan Property and Casualty Guaranty Association (MPCGA) then assumed responsibility for Childers' PIP benefits. The MPCGA, after an investigation, concluded that Progressive Marathon Insurance Company was next in line to provide Childers' PIP benefits. However, Progressive denied Childers' claim.The trial court granted summary disposition to Progressive, ruling that while the actions were not time-barred, Progressive was not within statutory priority for Childers' benefits. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, concluding that the one-year limitations period did not apply because the MPCGA is not generally subject to the no-fault act, and the MPCGA did not bring the action under the no-fault act. Instead, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the MPCGA’s right to proceed against Progressive came from the guaranty act, which allows the MPCGA to claim reimbursement from another insurer in the chain of designated priority insurers.The Michigan Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the Court of Appeals. It held that the one-year limitations period in MCL 500.3145(1) applies where either an insured or the MPCGA brings an action for PIP benefits against a lower priority no-fault insurer after the higher priority insurer becomes insolvent. The court concluded that both the action brought by Childers' conservator and the MPCGA's action were time-barred. The court reversed part of the Court of Appeals' opinion, vacated the remainder, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Childers v. Progressive Marathon Insurance Company" on Justia Law

A roofing contractor in Texas, Stonewater Roofing, Ltd. Co., filed a lawsuit against the Texas Department of Insurance and its Commissioner, Cassie Brown, seeking to invalidate Texas’s licensing and dual-capacity regulations for public insurance adjusters. Stonewater, which is not a licensed public insurance adjuster, argued that these laws violated free speech and due process rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The trial court dismissed the case, siding with the state regulator, who argued that the laws regulated professional conduct, not speech, and that Stonewater failed to state valid void-for-vagueness claims under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the regulations triggered First Amendment scrutiny because the business of public insurance adjusting necessarily involves speech. The court also held that Stonewater’s vagueness challenges survived because the Public Insurance Adjusters Act did not clearly proscribe Stonewater’s alleged conduct.The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment. The court held that the challenged statutes do not regulate or restrict speech but, rather, representative capacity with a nonexpressive objective: employment to act on behalf of an insured in negotiating for or effecting the settlement of a claim. The court also held that the statutes are clear enough in proscribing Stonewater’s alleged conduct to preclude both its as-applied and facial vagueness challenges. The court concluded that Stonewater failed to state cognizable First and Fourteenth Amendment speech and vagueness claims, and therefore, the trial court properly granted the state regulator's dismissal motion. View "TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE v. STONEWATER ROOFING, LTD. CO" on Justia Law

The case involves Truck Insurance Exchange (Truck), the primary insurer for companies that manufactured and sold products containing asbestos. Two of these companies, Kaiser Gypsum Co. and Hanson Permanente Cement (Debtors), filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after facing thousands of asbestos-related lawsuits. As part of the bankruptcy process, the Debtors proposed a reorganization plan that created an Asbestos Personal Injury Trust (Trust) to handle all present and future asbestos-related claims. Truck, contractually obligated to defend each covered asbestos personal injury claim and to indemnify the Debtors for up to $500,000 per claim, opposed the Plan, arguing that it exposed them to millions of dollars in fraudulent claims due to different disclosure requirements for insured and uninsured claims.The District Court confirmed the Plan, concluding that Truck had limited standing to object to the Plan because it was “insurance neutral,” meaning it did not increase Truck’s prepetition obligations or impair its contractual rights under its insurance policies. The Fourth Circuit affirmed this decision, agreeing that Truck was not a “party in interest” under §1109(b) of the Bankruptcy Code because the plan was “insurance neutral.”The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Fourth Circuit's decision, holding that an insurer with financial responsibility for bankruptcy claims is a “party in interest” under §1109(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and may raise and appear and be heard on any issue in a Chapter 11 case. The Court reasoned that §1109(b)’s text, context, and history confirm that an insurer such as Truck with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is a “party in interest” because it may be directly and adversely affected by the reorganization plan. The Court also rejected the “insurance neutrality” doctrine, stating that it conflates the merits of an objection with the threshold party in interest inquiry. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co." on Justia Law

The case involves a personal injury action initiated by Torrey Kath against Michael Prochnow and Prochnow Farms. After the parties filed a "Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice," the district court dismissed the case. Kath then filed a separate declaratory judgment action against Agraria Insurance Company, doing business as Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Company (FUMIC), seeking an order that FUMIC had a duty to indemnify Prochnow under an insurance policy. While FUMIC's motion in the declaratory judgment action was pending, Kath and Prochnow filed a "Joint Rule 60 Motion to Vacate Dismissal with Prejudice" in the original case, seeking an amended judgment.The district court had previously dismissed the case with prejudice. However, Kath and Prochnow filed a motion to vacate the dismissal, which the court granted. FUMIC then filed a motion to intervene, arguing that Kath and Prochnow were seeking to impair its rights. The district court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to decide on FUMIC's intervention motion because the case had been dismissed.The Supreme Court of North Dakota disagreed with the district court's decision. The court noted that Kath and Prochnow's motion to vacate the dismissal re-invoked the district court's jurisdiction. Furthermore, FUMIC's intervention motion initiated a special proceeding, which also invoked the court's jurisdiction. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the district court erred in ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to consider FUMIC's motion to intervene. The case was remanded for the district court to decide on FUMIC's motion to intervene and, if necessary, to conduct additional proceedings consistent with its disposition of the motion. View "Kath v. Prochnow" on Justia Law

The case involves SKAV, L.L.C., the owner of a Best Western hotel in Abbeville, Louisiana, and Independent Specialty Insurance Company. The hotel was damaged by Hurricane Laura in August 2020, and SKAV filed a claim on a surplus lines insurance policy it had purchased from Independent Specialty. The policy contained an arbitration clause requiring all disputes to be settled by arbitration. However, SKAV sued Independent Specialty in the Western District of Louisiana, alleging that the insurance company had failed to adequately cover the hotel's hurricane damage under the policy's terms. Independent Specialty moved to compel arbitration, but the district court denied the motion, citing a prior decision that concluded that § 22:868 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes voids an arbitration provision in a contract for surplus lines insurance.The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The main dispute was the effect of § 22:868 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes on the insurance policy's arbitration clause. The statute bars insurance policies from depriving Louisiana courts of jurisdiction and permits, in limited circumstances, forum- and venue-selection provisions. The court noted that there were conflicting decisions on this issue from district courts in Louisiana and New York.The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. The court concluded that the arbitration clause in the surplus lines insurance policy was void under § 22:868. The court reasoned that the Louisiana Legislature's 2020 amendments to the statute did not reverse the state's longstanding anti-arbitration policy. The court also rejected Independent Specialty's argument that the issue of the arbitration clause's validity must itself go to arbitration, stating that when a statute prevents the valid formation of an arbitration agreement, the court cannot compel arbitration, even on threshold questions of arbitrability. View "S. K. A. V. v. Independent Specialty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The case involves M&T Farms, a California general partnership between two farmers, who purchased crop insurance under the Whole-Farm Revenue Protection Pilot Policy (the “WFRP Policy”) from Producers Agriculture Insurance Company (“ProAg”), an insurer approved and reinsured by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC). M&T Farms and a third farmer sell farm commodities through a storefront, B&T Farms, which owns their business name and goodwill and is also a California general partnership. M&T Farms filed a claim seeking the full policy amount, which ProAg denied. The FCIC concluded that the WFRP Policy does not allow a partner who files taxes on a fractional share of farming activity conducted by a partnership to be eligible for WFRP coverage for the fractional share of that farming activity.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the FCIC. M&T Farms challenged the FCIC’s decision that a partnership “holding the business name and good will of [others] (i.e., marketing and selling the commodities produced)” is engaged in “farming activity” under section 3(a)(4) of the WFRP Policy, and that therefore, any entity reporting a fractional share of the partnership’s activity on its tax returns is ineligible for WFRP Policy coverage.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the WFRP Policy contained an ambiguity regarding the definition of “farming activity.” The FCIC’s conclusion that a partnership selling its partners’ products and holding their goodwill and business name was engaged in “farming activity” under section 3(a)(4) of the policy had a reasonable basis and was also reasonable as a matter of policy. Because the FCIC’s interpretation of “farming activity” in the WFRP Policy was reasonable, it survived APA arbitrary and capricious review. The court also held that the term “farming activity” in the WFRP policy was genuinely ambiguous, the FCIC’s conclusion had a reasonable basis, and the FCIC’s conclusion was entitled to controlling weight. View "M & T FARMS V. FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION" on Justia Law

Sun Holdings purchased a workers’ compensation policy from American Zurich Insurance, which required Sun to reimburse American Zurich for the first $250,000 of each claim. American Zurich fulfilled its obligations under the policy, but Sun did not. When Sun received bills, it ignored them without explanation or justification. American Zurich invoked the policy’s dispute-resolution clause, which called for arbitration in Illinois under New York law and the rules of the American Arbitration Association. During the arbitration, Sun offered a series of weak excuses, which the arbitrators dismissed. The arbitrators ordered Sun to pay what American Zurich claimed (approximately $1.1 million plus 9% interest from the time each bill was due) and added almost $175,000 in attorneys’ fees as a sanction for frivolous defense.American Zurich applied to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for enforcement of the arbitration award. Sun argued that the arbitrators had exceeded their authority by directing it to pay the insurer’s legal fees, citing two sentences in the contract. The district court disagreed with Sun and ordered it to pay the award in full.The case was then brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The court held that the arbitrators had interpreted the contract when they concluded that its reference to legal fees did no more than adopt the American Rule, which allows each side to pay its own lawyers but does not forbid sanctions for frivolous litigation. The court stated that whether the arbitrators were right or wrong in their interpretation was not its concern. The court also noted that Sun's arguments were requests to contradict the arbitrators’ findings, which the Federal Arbitration Act forbids. The court affirmed the district court's decision and issued an order for Sun to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for its frivolous appeal. View "American Zurich Insurance Company v. Sun Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and 21st Century Insurance Company and other insurance companies (plaintiffs). The plaintiffs, who paid policyholders for losses resulting from a fire known as the Creek Fire, sued SCE under a subrogation theory to recover their payments. They alleged that an arc from SCE's electric powerlines caused the fire. During discovery, SCE withheld certain documents, asserting they were generated during an attorney-led internal investigation into the cause of the fire and were protected by attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. The plaintiffs moved to compel the production of these documents, arguing that SCE's primary reason for conducting the investigation was to comply with state law requiring it to publicly report any involvement it had in causing the fire. The trial court agreed with the plaintiffs and compelled the production of the documents.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division One reviewed the case. The court concluded that the trial court's order improperly invaded the protection afforded by the attorney work product doctrine. Even where the dominant purpose of an attorney-directed internal investigation is to comply with a client's public reporting requirement, attorney work product generated in connection with gathering facts to assist counsel in advising the client on how to comply with that statutory or regulatory reporting requirement remains protected. As the plaintiffs did not show grounds for the production of their adversary's work product, the trial court erred in compelling its production. The court did not address whether the order also violated the attorney-client privilege. The court granted SCE's petition and directed the trial court to vacate its order and issue a new order denying the plaintiffs' motion to compel. View "Southern California Edison Co. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The case involves Bristol SL Holdings, Inc., the successor-in-interest to Sure Haven, Inc., a defunct drug rehabilitation and mental health treatment center, and Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company and Cigna Behavioral Health, Inc. Bristol alleged that Sure Haven's calls to Cigna verifying out-of-network coverage and seeking authorization to provide health services created independent contractual obligations. Cigna, however, denied payment based on fee-forgiving, a practice prohibited by the health plans. Bristol brought state law claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel against Cigna.The district court initially dismissed Bristol’s claims, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, holding that Bristol had derivative standing to sue for unpaid benefits as Sure Haven’s successor-in-interest. On remand, the district court granted Cigna’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempted Bristol’s state law claims.On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Bristol’s state law claims were preempted by ERISA because they had both a “reference to” and an “impermissible connection with” the ERISA plans that Cigna administered. The court reasoned that Bristol’s claims were not independent of an ERISA plan because they concerned the denial of reimbursement to patients who were covered under such plans. The court also held that allowing liability on Bristol’s state law claims would interfere with nationally uniform plan administration, a central matter of plan administration. View "Bristol SL Holdings, Inc. v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co." on Justia Law