Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Monarch Casino & Resort, Inc. appealed a district court’s grant of Affiliated FM Insurance Company’s (“AFM”) motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, which denied Monarch coverage under AFM’s all-risk policy provision, business-interruption provision, and eight other additional-coverage provisions. Monarch also moved the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to certify a question of state law or issue a stay. Monarch presented AFM with claims incurred through business interruption losses from COVID-19 and government orders directing Monarch to close its casinos. AFM denied certain coverage on the ground that COVID-19 did not cause physical loss of or damage to property. Monarch sued for breach of contract, bad faith breach of insurance contract, and violations of state law. The Tenth Circuit denied Monarch’s motions to certify a question of state law and issue a stay. And it affirmed the district court’s judgment: (1) AFM’s policy had a Contamination Exclusion provision that excludes all-risk coverage and business-interruption coverage from the COVID-19 virus; and (2) Monarch could not obtain coverage for physical loss or damage caused by COVID-19 under AFM’s all-risk provision, business-interruption provision, or eight additional-coverage provisions because the virus could not cause physical loss or damage and no other policy provisions distinguished this case. Accordingly, Monarch could not obtain the coverage that the district court denied. View "Monarch Casino & Resort v. Affiliated FM Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Explosives manufacturer Dyno Nobel tendered an action to its commercial general liability insurance policyholder, Steadfast Insurance Company (“Steadfast”), after being sued in Missouri for damages caused by the release of a nitric oxide plume from one of its Missouri plants. Steadfast denied the claim based on the insurance policy’s clauses precluding indemnification and defense of pollution-related bodily injury actions. Dyno Nobel thereafter filed an action in Utah state court seeking a declaratory judgment that Steadfast had a duty to indemnify and defend against this action under an endorsement titled “Vermont Changes – Pollution” (“Vermont Endorsement”). Contrary to Coverages A, B, and C in the insurance policy, the Vermont Endorsement would have required Steadfast to defend and indemnify against pollution-related bodily injury claims up to an aggregate amount of $3 million. Steadfast removed the action to federal court, and the federal district court entered judgment for Steadfast, concluding the Vermont Endorsement applied only to claims with a nexus to Vermont. Dyno Nobel appealed. After its review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed, finding the plain language of the insurance contract did not cover Dyno Nobel’s claim in the underlying action. View "Dyno Nobel v. Steadfast Insurance Company" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court issuing an order awarding the Estate of Thomas Ronan the insurance proceeds of a house that was destroyed by fire, holding that the district court did not err.When Janet Le Ora Ronan died, she left a holographic will specifically devising her interest in a farm to Thomas "with him having preference to keeping the house [and] farmstead...." After the district court adopted a stipulated settlement agreement (SSA) setting forth the terms as to how to distribute the estate the house was destroyed in a fire. Thomas later died. Appellants had previously insured the house with Janet's estate as the insurance beneficiary, and the insurance company issued $169,089 for the house and $15,250 for personal property destroyed in the fire. The district court relied on the doctrine of equitable conversion to award Thomas's estate the insurance money. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in distributing the insurance proceeds according to Montana residuary law or the SSA; and (2) did not err by relying on the doctrine of equitable conversion to distribute the insurance proceeds in furtherance of Janet's intent in specifically devising the house to Thomas. View "In re Estate of Ronan" on Justia Law

These appeals are about a pending insurance contract dispute between Positano Place at Naples I Condominium Association, Inc., and Empire Indemnity Insurance Company, which issued an insurance policy (the “Policy”) to Positano for coverage of five buildings that Positano owns in Naples, Florida. Following Hurricane Irma, Positano filed a first-party claim for property insurance benefits under the Policy, claiming that Hurricane Irma damaged its property and that the damage was covered by the Policy. Empire determined that there was coverage to only three of the five buildings covered by the Policy but disagreed as to the amount of the loss. Positano sought to invoke appraisal based on the Policy’s appraisal provision. Positano sued Empire in Florida state court, and Empire removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Positano moved to compel appraisal and to stay the case pending the resolution of the appraisal proceedings, which Empire opposed. The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the district court grant Positano’s motion, and, over Empire’s objection, the district court ordered the parties to appraisal and stayed the proceedings pending appraisal. Empire timely appealed the district court’s order.   The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal. The court concluded that the district court’s order compelling appraisal and staying the proceedings pending appraisal is an interlocutory order that is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(a)(1). The court concluded that the order compelling appraisal and staying the action pending appraisal is not immediately appealable under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). View "Positano Place at Naples I Condominium Association, Inc. v. Empire Indemnity Insurance Company" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals answered in the negative the question of whether Insurance Law 3203(a)(2), which requires insurers to refund a portion of a life insurance premium "if the death of the insured occurs during a period for which the premium has been paid," holding that the plain language of section 3203(a)(2) does not apply to discretionary payments like those at issue in this case.In this action concerning a contract for a life insurance policy entered into between a family trust with Defendant, Plaintiff, as trustee of the trust, filed this putative class action against Defendant for breach of contract, alleging that its refusal to refund a prorated portion of the final year's planned premium violated section 3203(a)(2). The federal district court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss, concluding that section 3203(a)(2) did not require the refund. The federal court of appeals certified to the Court of Appeals a question of law. The Court of Appeals answered that section 3203(a)(2) did not apply to discretionary payments like those at issue in this case. View "Nitkewicz v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Co. of N.Y." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that Acuity was not required to provide coverage for the car accident in this case, holding that Acuity must provide coverage for the accident.Ashton Smith, who was insured by Acuity and had borrowed a friend's car, was involved in an accident. The car's owner was insured by Progressive Speciality Insurance Company. Under the Progressive policy, Smith was not an "insured person" when he was driving his friend's car, but he was covered by the plain language of the Acuity policy. The trial court found Acuity responsible for providing liability coverage. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that under the plain language of the two policies at issue, Acuity was responsible for providing coverage. View "Acuity, A Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Specialty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

American Southwest Mortgage Corporation and American Southwest Mortgage Funding Corporation (together, “the Lenders”) loaned money to First Mortgage Company, LLC. Robinson Gary Johnson & Associates, PLLC (the “Auditor”) audited First Mortgage’s finances for several years. The Auditor’s annual reports failed to note that First Mortgage was committing fraud. The Lenders sued the Auditor, and the Auditor’s insurer, Continental Casualty, Inc., defended the suit. The parties settled some claims. The district court held that each negligently conducted audit report was not “interrelated” to each other, while also holding that the Lenders’ claims on each audit in the same year were “interrelated.” Both sides appealed. After review, the Tenth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part. The district court erred by not finding each audit here interrelated. "That is because, under the insurance policy, each audit is logically connected by common facts and circumstances relating to the Auditor’s negligence." The Court affirmed that the Lenders’ claims pertaining to each individual audit were “interrelated,” finding the policy clarified that all claims arising out of the same act—here, each audit—were interrelated regardless of the quantity or type of claimants. View "American Southwest Mortgage Corp., et al. v. Continental Casualty Company" on Justia Law

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London (“Lloyds”) brought an intervenor complaint against Cox Operating LLC (“Cox”) seeking to recover maintenance and cure benefits Lloyds paid to an injured seaman. Cox filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Lloyds bears responsibility for the payments under a protection and indemnity (“P & I”) policy under which Cox is an assured. The district court agreed and granted the motion. Lloyds timely appealed.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that even if there were ambiguity as to the term “intended operations,” as included in the limitation on the waiver of subrogation, any such ambiguity is to be resolved “in favor of coverage.” Because the M/V SELECT 102 was engaged in its “intended operations” at the time of the seaman’s injury and the limitation on the waiver of subrogation does not apply, Lloyds waived its subrogation rights as to Cox. Thus, the court affirmed the he district court’s dismissal of Lloyds’s intervenor complaint. View "Certain Underwriters v. Cox Operating" on Justia Law

On July 12, 2018, Sunbelt Shavings, LLC (Sunbelt), requested that an employee from KC Welding, LLC (KC Welding), come to Sunbelt’s property to repair the door of a box containing wood chips. KC Welding arrived and welded the box; later that night, a fire started at Sunbelt’s property. The fire was extinguished on July 13, 2018. Three years later, on July 13, 2021, Western World Insurance Group (Western World), as the subrogee of Sunbelt, Shuqualak Lumber Co., and Wood Carriers, Inc., sued KC Welding for breach of contract and negligence. KC Welding moved to dismiss the case as untimely. On May 2, 2022, the trial court granted KC Welding’s motion, dismissing Western World’s complaint as untimely. Western World appealed. Finding that Western World had until July 12, 2021, to bring a timely claim against KC Welding, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint as untimely. View "Western World Insurance Group v. KC Welding, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant Compass Minerals Louisiana, Inc. (“Compass”) is part of a mineral company that owns and operates multiple salt mines. Among Compass’s locations is its Cote Blanche salt mine. Compass contracted with Louisiana-based companies Fire & Safety Specialists, Inc. (“FSS”) and MC Electric, LLC (“MCE”). An electrician employed by MCE died in an accident at the Cote Blanche salt mine. Both FSS and MCE held a commercial general liability policy with QBE. QBE filed a declaratory action in federal court, asserting that the indemnification and additional-insured provisions in the FSS and MCE purchase orders are “null, void, and unenforceable” under the Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act (“LOAIA”). The court rejected QBE’s argument that Compass “drills for” salt by using the drill-and-blast method for breaking a salt wall. It concluded, relatedly, that the term “drilling for minerals” in the LOAIA “should be construed as referring to the drilling of a well.” QBE appealed.   Finding no clear and controlling precedent on this issue of Louisiana law, the Fifth Circuit certified two questions to the Louisiana Supreme Court: 1.     Does the Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act, La. Stat. Ann. Section 9:2780, apply to provisions in agreements that pertain to “drilling for minerals,” even where the agreement does not “pertain to a well”? 2.     If the Act applies to agreements that pertain to “drilling for minerals,” irrespective of the agreement’s nexus to a well, does the Act apply to invalidate these indemnification and additional-insured provisions contained in contracts for fire suppression and electrical work in a salt mine, by virtue of the salt mine’s use of a “drill-and-blast” method for mining salt? View "QBE Syndicate 1036 v. Compass Minerals" on Justia Law