Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

After a hailstorm damaged its property, a food and resource center submitted a claim to its property insurer. The insurer hired an engineering company to inspect the property and report its findings. Following the inspection, the insured filed a lawsuit against the insurer for breach of contract and bad faith, and against its insurance agent for misrepresentation. Later, the insured amended its petition to add claims against the engineering company for tortious interference with contract and civil conspiracy, alleging the company’s inspection and reporting were biased to support the insurer’s position.The District Court of Payne County reviewed the engineering company’s motion to dismiss the claims against it. The court denied the motion, allowing the tortious interference and civil conspiracy claims to proceed. The engineering company petitioned for interlocutory review, and the district court certified its order, expressing that immediate appeal would materially advance the litigation’s resolution. The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma granted certiorari to consider whether the insured’s claims against the engineering company were legally viable.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma held that the claims against the engineering company fail as a matter of law. The Court determined that, because the engineering company acted as a representative for the insurer when conducting the inspection, it cannot be liable for tortious interference with contract or civil conspiracy under Oklahoma law. The Court emphasized that such representatives are privileged in their actions and that the insurer’s duties are non-delegable. Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "COMMUNITY RESOURCING, INC. v. BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY SPECIALTY INSURANCE" on Justia Law

A bus accident involving the Choctaw Nation resulted in a lawsuit seeking damages for deceased and injured passengers. At the time, the Nation was insured by three companies: Occidental Insurance Company, Hudson Insurance Company, and General Star Indemnity Company. Occidental paid its policy limits and was not involved in this litigation. Hudson and General Star both contributed to settlement payments and defense costs, each asserting that its policy was excess and the other was primary. General Star sought reimbursement from Hudson for settlement sums paid, arguing that Hudson’s policy was primary. Hudson contended its policy was excess and only liable after other coverage was exhausted.The District Court granted summary judgment to General Star, ordering Hudson to reimburse General Star for its payments. The court also awarded General Star prejudgment interest under 36 O.S. § 3629 (B) after a post-judgment motion. Hudson appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the district court’s rulings regarding policy status and the award of prejudgment interest, but reversed the requirement that judgment be paid within thirty days. Hudson then sought certiorari review from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma on the issues of policy characterization and prejudgment interest.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma vacated the Court of Civil Appeals’ opinion. It affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of General Star and denial of summary judgment to Hudson, holding that Hudson’s policy was primary and General Star’s was excess. However, the Supreme Court reversed the award of prejudgment interest, finding that Section 3629 (B) does not allow a prevailing insurer to recover prejudgment interest in a coverage dispute between insurers. The order of final judgment was also reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "GENERAL STAR INDEMNITY CO. v. HUDSON INSURANCE CO." on Justia Law

A couple hired a mobile home transport company to move their mobile home to a new location. The company, Brown & Son, subcontracted the actual move to another individual, Jason Gaston. During transport, the home sustained significant damage when the wheels became stuck, and efforts to move it led to further harm. Before the move, the couple spoke with their insurance agent, who assured them their existing policies would cover any transport-related loss. However, after the damage, their insurers denied the claim, citing exclusions for damages incurred during transport.The couple then sued their insurers and their agent, Michelle Schaefer, for breach of contract, bad faith, and misrepresentation regarding their insurance coverage. They did not bring claims against Brown & Son or Gaston. In response, Schaefer, as a third-party plaintiff, sought contribution or indemnity from Brown & Son and Gaston, arguing that if she was found liable for the couple’s losses, those parties should share responsibility. The District Court of Oklahoma County granted summary judgment to Brown & Son, concluding that statutory changes in Oklahoma law had abolished joint and several liability and, by extension, the right to contribution in this context. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed that decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case on certiorari. The Court vacated the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals but affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Brown & Son, though on different grounds. The Supreme Court held that contribution was unavailable because the alleged injuries caused by Brown & Son (physical damage to the mobile home) and Schaefer (losses from lack of insurance coverage) were not the same injury as required by statute. Therefore, Brown & Son and Schaefer were not jointly or severally liable for the same injury, and no right of contribution existed. View "RICHARDS v. FOREMOST INSURANCE CO." on Justia Law

Jai Hospitality, LLC (Jai) sued Western World Insurance Company (Western World) after Western World denied Jai's claim for damages from a fire at Jai's motel, arguing that the insurance policy had expired. Jai contended that Western World failed to provide proper notice of nonrenewal or a renewal offer with a premium increase, which should have extended the policy term. Western World argued that it was not required to send notice directly to Jai and that the policy expired on June 1, 2020. Jai obtained replacement insurance in July 2020, after the fire.The District Court of Garvin County initially denied both parties' motions for summary judgment. Upon reconsideration, the court granted Western World's motion, finding that Western World made a timely, legally effective offer to renew the policy and was not required to send the offer directly to Jai. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, agreeing that notice to Jai's insurance agent constituted notice to Jai.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and held that the trial court erred in finding that Western World was not required to send its renewal offer directly to Jai. The court determined that the terms of the insurance contract and Oklahoma law required Western World to provide written notice of a renewal offer with a premium increase directly to the first named insured. The court concluded that notice to Jai's insurance agent did not satisfy this requirement. Consequently, the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion was vacated, the District Court's order was reversed, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "Jai Hospitality, LLC v. Western World Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The case involves Nancy Anaya-Smith, the next of kin of Michael Brian Smith, who was killed in a single-car accident while he was a passenger in a company vehicle owned by Fixtures & Drywall Company of Oklahoma (FADCO). The vehicle was being driven by Smith's coworker, Duane Clark. Anaya-Smith alleges that Clark's negligence caused the fatal accident. At the time of the accident, FADCO maintained an insurance policy with Federated Mutual Insurance Company (Federated). The policy provided up to $1,000,000 of liability coverage per accident and an additional $6,000,000 of liability coverage per accident under an umbrella policy. However, FADCO had rejected uninsured motorist (UM) coverage for all employees, except for its directors, officers, partners, owners, and their family members.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted summary judgment in favor of Federated, concluding that the vehicle was an uninsured vehicle at the time of the accident because Clark is immune from tort liability under the workers' compensation exclusive remedy provision, and that FADCO's policy providing UM coverage for some individuals who qualify as insureds but rejecting UM coverage for other insureds does not violate Oklahoma law. Anaya-Smith appealed from the summary judgment order.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma answered the first certified question in the affirmative, holding that the vehicle qualifies as an uninsured motor vehicle within the meaning of Oklahoma law. The court answered the second certified question in the negative, concluding that the plain language of Oklahoma law requires a named insured to either elect or reject uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage for all insureds under the policy, treating every insured in the same manner. The court declined to answer the third certified question as the record was undeveloped and the parties did not submit legal arguments pertaining to it. View "Anaya-Smith v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Medical providers sued insurance company to enforce their perfected medical liens for professional services rendered to a person injured in a car accident. Insurance company disputed the: (1) reasonableness of the charges; and (2) necessity of the services. The providers argued the insurance company had no legal standing to dispute these issues, absent an assignment from the injured party. Although Insurance company prepared the "Release" with the injured person, it failed to include such an assignment. Insurance company argued that in spite of this omission, there was an "implied" assignment from the injured party as evidenced by precontract settlement discussions. The trial court ruled that there was no assignment in the executed written release and that insurance company was barred by the Parol Evidence Rule from presenting evidence to establish an implied assignment. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court holding that summary judgment was not proper when there was a question of fact surrounding the issue of an assignment. The Oklahoma Supreme Court found there was no assignment in the executed release and there was no question of fact on material issues. Without evidence of fraud, the Court found precontract negotiations and all discussions were merged into and superseded by the terms of an executed written release. The decision of the Court of Civil Appeals was vacated; and this matter was remanded to the trial court for proceedings. View "Accident Care & Treatment Center v. CSAA General Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Cherokee Nation filed a declaratory judgment action seeking insurance coverage under the business interruption provision of a policy issued by a number of insurers for the economic losses it incurred when it temporarily closed its properties due to the threat of COVID-19. The district court granted Cherokee Nation's motion for partial summary judgment, holding the phrase "direct physical loss" in the business interruption provision of the policy included coverage for losses sustained by property rendered unusable for its intended purpose. The district court also found that none of the exclusions raised by the insurers applied to Cherokee Nation's loss. The insurers appealed, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court retained the appeal, holding that Cherokee Nation's losses were not covered under the business interruption section of the insurance policy at issue. The district court erred in finding business interruption coverage when Cherokee Nation did not sustain immediate, tangible deprivation or destruction of property. View "Cherokee Nation v. Lexington Insurance Co., et al." on Justia Law

Appellant Marie Yammine, as former wife and primary beneficiary of a two million dollar life insurance policy issued by Respondent ReliaStar Life Insurance Company to her former husband, Dr. Jean Bernard, appealed a declaratory judgment finding the contingent beneficiary, Appellee Roland Ghoussoub, was entitled to the policy's death benefit. Dr. Bernard died after the trial court granted the parties' divorce but prior to final judgment on all issues. The trial court declared Yammine and Bernard were divorced and that 15 O.S.2011 § 178(A) operated to revoke her beneficiary designation to the death benefits. Whether Oklahoma's revocation-upon-divorce statute, 15 O.S.2011 § 178(A), applied when one party dies after the granting of the divorce but prior to final judgment on all issues, was a matter of first impression for the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The Court concluded Section 178(A) required a final judgment on all issues, and that the trial court erred by interpreting 15 O.S.2011 § 178(A) to revoke Yammine's beneficiary designation in Bernard's life insurance policy based on an order granting divorce when the final judgment on all issues remained pending at husband's death. The trial court's declaratory judgment was reversed, and this case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Ghoussoub v. Yammine" on Justia Law

Crown Energy Company ("Crown") brought suit against Mid-Continent Casualty Company ("Mid-Continent") seeking declaratory judgment that two commercial general liability policies issued to Crown provided coverage for claims of property damage brought against Crown in a separate action. The claims arose out of seismic activity allegedly caused by Crown's use of waste water disposal wells in its oil and gas operations. Mid-Continent filed a counterclaim, seeking declaratory judgment that the claims were not covered under the policies because the seismic activity did not constitute an "occurrence" and that the claims fell within a pollution exclusion to the policies. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Crown. Mid-Continent appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. After its review, the Oklahoma Supreme Court found that the seismic activity did constitute an occurrence under the policies, and that the pollution exclusion did not bar coverage. The Court of Civil Appeals’ judgment was reversed and the trial court affirmed. View "Crown Energy Co. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant John Coates brought an action for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing against defendant-appellee Progressive Direct Insurance Company. Plaintiff was injured after a motorcycle collision; he was insured by Progressive under a motorcycle policy, an auto policy, and a policy providing UM coverage. Coates moved for partial summary judgment regarding his entitlement to uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. Progressive moved for summary judgment regarding Coates' bad faith claim. Coates sought more time to conduct discovery to address Progressive's counterclaim on bad faith. The trial court granted Coates' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, allowing his UM claim against Progressive. The trial court also granted Progressive's Motion for Summary Judgment, denying Coates' claim for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court denied Coates' Motion for Additional Time to Respond. After review of the parties’ arguments on appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment on Coates' UM claim. The Court reversed, however, the decisions granting Progressive's Motion for Summary Judgment and denying Coates additional time to respond to that motion. View "Coates v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co." on Justia Law