Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Zurich American Insurance Company (“Defendant”) insured St. Joe Minerals Corporation (“St. Joe”) and its sole shareholder Fluor Corporation (“Plaintiff”) from 1981 to 1985. St. Joe operated a lead smelting plant in Herculaneum, Missouri. Residents of the town sued Fluor and St. Joe in the early 2000s, claiming that they had been injured by the plant’s release of lead and other toxins.Defendant agreed to defend the companies and paid out $9.87 million. Defendant also contributed more than $25 million to a settlement between St. Joe and the remaining plaintiffs. Plaintiff went to trial, lost in a jury trial, and then settled the claims for $300 million.Defendant filed for declaratory judgment against Plaintiff, who filed a counterclaim alleging bad faith failure to settle. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendant, concluding that the policy limited Defendant’s liability on a per-occurrence basis and that the $3.5 million per-occurrence limit had been exhausted by Defendant’s initial payments. The court also concluded that Defendant did not act in bad faith when it elected not to settle the claims against Plaintiff.The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s policy-limits determination and remanded for further proceedings. The court found that an endorsement modified the limits of liability for comprehensive general liability, including bodily injury liability, to be on a per-claim basis. View "Fluor Corporation v. Zurich American Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the circuit court granting declaratory judgment for Acuity, a mutual insurance company, in this insurance dispute arising from a fatal automobile accident, holding that the court of appeals did not err.When Douglas Curley lost control of his vehicle and crossed the center line he hit another vehicle, killing Michael Shimeta and seriously injuring Terry Scherr. After Curley's insurer paid Shimeta's estate and Scherr $250,000 each both parties sought additional recovery under a policy that Acuity had issued to Shimeta before the accident. At issue was whether Acuity's underinsured motorist coverage entitled Shimeta's estate and Scherr to an additional $250,000 each from Acuity or whether the payments the parties received from Curley's insurer reduced their recovery to $0. The Supreme Court held that Acuity owed Shimeta's estate and Scherr $250,000 each, thus affirming the court of appeals. View "ACUITY v. Estate of Michael Shimeta" on Justia Law

Following a vehicular accident, Martin Peteet entered into a release and settlement agreement with the driver of the other vehicle and her insurer. Peteet did not seek a waiver of subrogation or consent from his own automobile insurer, Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company (Farm Bureau), prior to executing the release and settlement agreement. After the release and settlement agreement was executed, Peteet filed a complaint against Farm Bureau, seeking damages under the uninsured motorist (UM) provision in his auto policy with Farm Bureau. Farm Bureau moved to dismiss the complaint, and the county court denied the motion. Farm Bureau sought an interlocutory appeal, which the Mississippi Supreme Court granted. After a careful review of the law, the Supreme Court reversed the denial of the motion to dismiss and rendered judgment in favor of Farm Bureau. View "Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company v. Peteet" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Union Mutual”) appealed from a district court judgment. On March 4, 2017, a fire started at Liberty Avenue in Queens, New York, spreading to and damaging four neighboring buildings insured by Union Mutual. After an investigation, the fire marshals concluded, but could not determine with certainty, that the fire originated in the extension cords used by Ace Caribbean Market. Union Mutual paid proceeds to the damaged neighboring buildings and subrogated into their owners’ tort claims. Union Mutual then sued Ace Caribbean Market and others (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging that their negligent use of the extension cords caused the fire. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants. At issue on appeal is whether evidence that a fire may have originated in the extension cords is sufficient to show that (a) the owners and proprietors were negligent in their use of the extension cords and (b) if they were negligent, that negligence was the cause of the fire.   The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that such evidence is not sufficient. The court held that, at most, Union Mutual produced weak circumstantial evidence that something wrong with the extension cords caused the fire. But, even assuming a reasonable jury could so conclude, Union Mutual showed no evidence of negligence whatsoever on Defendants’ part, and evidence of causation by itself is not evidence of negligence. The court concluded that there may have been negligence and that negligence may have been the cause of the fire. But no inference that it was Defendants’ negligence is permissible on the facts. View "Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Ace Caribbean Mkt." on Justia Law

Defendant and his spouse maintained a car insurance policy (the “Policy”) with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. While the Policy was in force, Defendant’s wife was involved in an accident in which she was struck and injured by an uninsured driver of an electric motorized scooter. Defendants made a claim for her injuries under the Policy’s Uninsured Motor Vehicle (“UM”) coverage. State Farm denied the claim on the ground that under the Policy, the scooter was neither a “motor vehicle” nor an “uninsured motor vehicle,” which the Policy defined as a “land motor vehicle.” State Farm sued Defendants, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Policy provided no coverage. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court denied Defendant’s motion, granting summary judgment in part to State Farm.   Defendants argued that because the Policy defines “uninsured motor vehicle” as a “land motor vehicle,” the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “land motor vehicle” dictates the scope of the Policy, and under the plain and ordinary meaning of the term, the scooter is a covered uninsured motor vehicle. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to State Farm. The court concluded that the Policy defines “uninsured motor vehicle” more broadly than Florida insurance law requires. Because an insurer can provide more UM coverage than the law requires, we decline to disregard the Policy’s broader definition of uninsured motor vehicle in favor of a more limited statutory definition of motor vehicle. View "State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anna Bevilacqua Spangler, et al." on Justia Law

Secura Supreme Insurance Company appealed a judgment ordering Secura to indemnify Scott Differding for damages awarded against him in a tort case. The district court, deciding cross motions for summary judgment, held Secura’s policy did not insure Differding. The court nonetheless held Secura had to indemnify Differding under theories of waiver and estoppel because it assumed his defense in the tort case without reserving the right to deny coverage. The North Dakota Supreme Court held Differding could not invoke waiver and estoppel to create personal coverage under an insurance policy to which he was not a party and had no right to enforce. The district court’s judgment was therefore reversed. View "Secura Supreme Ins. Co., et al. v. Differding, et al." on Justia Law

The federal district court for the District of South Carolina certified a question of law to the South Carolina Supreme Court. Garland Denson (the decedent) was killed in an automobile accident allegedly caused by a drunk driver. The complaint alleged the at-fault driver was overserved at Royal Lanes, a bar insured by Defendant National Casualty Company (National Casualty) under a general liability policy with no liquor liability endorsement. During probate of the decedent's estate, his personal representative, Plaintiff Anthony Denson (Denson), discovered Royal Lanes did not have the required liquor liability insurance. Specifically, Denson learned National Casualty previously provided liquor liability coverage to Royal Lanes, but at the time of the accident, the business had failed to renew the liquor liability coverage, leaving only a general liability policy. Liquor liability coverage was statutorily mandated for certain establishments that sell alcoholic beverages, and the failure to maintain this coverage constituted a violation of South Carolina law. The federal court asked whether a person could bring a dram-shop negligence action against a business whose insurer failed to notify the state Department of Revenue of the business’ lapse in liquor liability coverage, and the business did not have coverage at the time of the accident. The Supreme Court responded in the negative: S.C. Code Ann. section 61-2-145(C) did not create a private right of action in favor of an injured party against the business's insurer. View "Denson v. National Casualty" on Justia Law

The federal district court for the District of South Carolina certified a question of law to the South Carolina Supreme Court. In 2019, USAA issued a personal automobile policy to Megan Jenkins. The policy defined "your covered auto" as any vehicle shown on the policy's declaration, any newly acquired vehicle, and any trailer owned by the insured. While riding her bicycle, Jenkins was struck and killed by an underinsured motorist. Defendant Vincent Rafferty—Jenkins' personal representative—made a claim under Jenkins' policy for UIM property damage arising from damage to the bicycle. USAA Casualty Insurance Company (USAA) denied the claim and commenced this action in federal court, asserting Jenkins' bicycle did not fall within the definition of "your covered auto." Whether USAA prevailed depended upon whether automobile insurers were required to offer UIM property damage coverage at all. If insurers were not required to offer UIM property damage coverage, they were free to restrict such coverage to an insured's "covered auto." The federal court asked the Supreme Court whether, under South Carolina Law, an auto insurer could validly limit underinsured motorist property damage coverage to property damage to vehicles defined in the policy as a “covered auto.” In their briefs and during oral argument, the parties did not directly address the question as framed by the district court. Instead, the parties briefed and argued the broader question of whether an automobile insurer's offer of underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage had to include property damage coverage. Because the answer to the broader question yielded the answer to the certified question, the Supreme Court addressed the parties’ question. USAA rightly conceded that if the Supreme Court held an insurer was required to offer UIM property damage coverage, the Court had to answer the certified question "no." The Court indeed held insurers were required to offer UIM property damage coverage, and therefore answered the certified question "no." View "USAA Casualty v. Rafferty" on Justia Law

In this case arising the death of James Savage after he was thrown from his motorcycle and run over by Oscar Ramos, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals remanding this case back to the circuit court for a new trial, holding that remand was required under the circumstances.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Property & Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford was not the owner of the Jeep Wrangler at issue according to Ky. Rev. Stat. 186A.530(3), and Co-part of Connecticut, Inc. was required to obtain proof of insurance pursuant to sections 186A.215 and 186A.220; (2) the court of appeals improperly engaged in fact-finding that affected its judgment on other issues; (3) the court of appeals erred in ruling that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Co-part to withdraw an admission; (4) strict liability does not apply as a matter of law for violations of Ky. Rev. Stat. 186A.500; and (5) Aull v. Houston, 345 S.W.3d 232 (Ky. App. 2010) is hereby abrogated to the extent that it can be read to hold that Social Security Disability benefits are inadmissible in a damages calculation in a wrongful death suit. View "Savage v. Co-Part of Connecticut, Inc." on Justia Law

Insureds – who operate an annual motorcycle rally in Pattersonville, New York (the “Harley Rendezvous”) – appealed from the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Covington Specialty Insurance Company (“Covington”) in this insurance-coverage dispute. Specifically, the parties disagree as to Covington’s duties, under a general commercial liability policy issued to the Insureds (the “Policy”), to defend and indemnify the Insureds against personal-injury claims asserted in a separate, state-court action by two motorcycle riders who were struck by another attendee’s automobile at the Harley Rendezvous. The district court found that a provision of the Policy (the “Absolute Auto Exclusion”) unambiguously excluded liability coverage for automobile accidents, regardless of whether the Insureds themselves owned or operated the vehicle at issue. On appeal, the Insureds argued that the district court was bound by – and erroneously failed to follow – a case in which a New York intermediate appellate court found ambiguity in a similarly worded exclusion provision in a different insurance policy.   The Second Circuit affirmed and found that Grande Stone Quarry is inapposite here and that countless other decisions by New York courts support the district court’s reading of the Absolute Auto Exclusion. The court explained the district court’s “task” here was simply “to determine how the New York Court of Appeals would decide” the issue. Here, the record reflects that the district court carried out that task soundly and carefully. The court concluded that under New York law, the Absolute Auto Exclusion unambiguously precludes coverage of the Insureds’ defense and indemnity in the Underlying Action. View "Covington Specialty Ins. Co. v. Indian Lookout Country Club, Inc." on Justia Law