Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

After a fire damaged a building the Hinebauchs purchased from the McRaes, the Hinebauchs filed a complaint against the McRaes, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The district court granted the McRaes' motion for summary judgment, determining (1) because no evidence was presented showing that the McRaes agreed to obtain insurance for the building naming the Hinebauchs as an insured party, there was a lack of mutual consent and the agreement was unenforceable; and (2) the Hinebauchs did not establish any requisite misconduct or fault on the part of the McRaes, and the Hinebauchs had unclean hands in seeking equitable relief on the claim for unjust enrichment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the statute of frauds precluded the Hinebauchs from enforcing any promises ostensibly made to them by the McRaes; and (2) the Hinebauchs wholly failed to show any misconduct or fault on the part of the McRaes, and therefore, the Hinebauchs' claim for unjust enrichment was without merit.

After a fire damaged a building the Hinebauchs purchased from the McRaes, the Hinebauchs filed a complaint against the McRaes, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The district court granted the McRaes' motion for summary judgment, determining (1) because no evidence was presented showing that the McRaes agreed to obtain insurance for the building naming the Hinebauchs as an insured party, there was a lack of mutual consent and the agreement was unenforceable; and (2) the Hinebauchs did not establish any requisite misconduct or fault on the part of the McRaes, and the Hinebauchs had unclean hands in seeking equitable relief on the claim for unjust enrichment. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding (1) the statute of frauds precluded the Hinebauchs from enforcing any promises ostensibly made to them by the McRaes; and (2) the Hinebauchs wholly failed to show any misconduct or fault on the part of the McRaes, and therefore, the Hinebauchs' claim for unjust enrichment was without merit.

The issue before the Tenth Circuit in this case centered on whether property damage caused by a subcontractor's faulty workmanship is an "ocurrence" for purposes of a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy. The issue arose from the appeals of Plaintiffs-Appellants Greystone Construction, Inc., The Branan Company, and American Family Mutual Insurance Company (American) who all appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant National Fire & Marine Insurance Company (National). Greystone was the general contractor that employed multiple subcontractors to build a house in Colorado. As is common along Colorado’s front range, the house was built on soils containing expansive clays. Over time, soil expansion caused the foundation to shift, resulting in extensive damage to the home’s living areas. The homeowners sued Greystone for damages, alleging defective construction by the subcontractors who installed the foundation. Greystone was insured under CGL policies provided by two insurers. American provided policies for 2001 to 2003, and National provided policies for 2003 to 2006. The American and National policy periods did not overlap. Greystone tendered a claim to American and then National. National denied it owed Greystone any defense. In district court, the builders and American sought to recover a portion of their defense costs from National. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that damage arising from a poor workmanship may fall under a CGL policy’s initial grant of coverage, even though recovery may still be precluded by a business-risk exclusion or another provision of the policy. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

Employers Mutual Casualty Company (Employers Mutual) appealed a circuit court's denial of its motion to intervene in a pending case. Holman Building Company was sued by multiple homeowners who claimed their homes were poorly built from inferior building materials with poor quality workmanship. In 2010, Employers Mutual moved to intervene in the action, asserting that it had issued Holman commercial general-liability and umbrella policies that covered some if not all of the allegations made by the homeowners. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Employers Mutual's permissive intervention: "given the complexity of this case, the trial court was clearly within ints discretion to deny Employers Mutual's request to intervene for the purpose of obtaining a bifurcated trial of insurance-coverage issues or a special verdict or a general verdict accompanied by answers to interrogatories ... this case provides a prime example of the need for discretion in a trial court's ruling on an insurer's motion for permissive intervention." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's decision to deny the insurance company's intervention.

This case involved a dispute over the proper interpretation under Georgia law of a real property insurance contract between plaintiff and defendant. The insurance policy provided coverage for "direct physical loss of or damage to" a building plaintiff owned in the Buckhead area of Atlanta. At issue was whether the Georgia courts would hold that the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Mabry rule extended to standard insurance contracts for buildings. Because this was an important unsettled question of state law, and there was no controlling precedent from the Georgia state courts, the court certified the question to the Supreme Court of Georgia.

After Homeowners' house burned down, Homeowners' insurer denied coverage, stating that payment was not timely delivered, the money order was not signed, and the damaged house was the secondary house and Insurer's underwriting policies required insurance on the primary house also to be purchased through Insurer in order to have coverage in place for the secondary residence. Homeowners filed suit, asserting that no reasonable basis in fact or law existed for denial of the claim and seeking damages and a declaratory judgment that the loss was covered. The district court granted Insurer's motion for summary judgment and denied Homeowners' motion for partial summary judgment with respect to their declaratory judgment action. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Insurer as genuine issues of material fact remained, and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Homeowners' motion for partial summary judgment.

Insured submitted a claim to Insurer after his house was damaged by a storm. Insured returned the payment tendered to him by Insurer, deeming the amount insufficient to cover the damage to his home. Almost two years after the house was damaged, Insured filed suit against Insurer. Insurer argued the lawsuit was barred by a clause in the insurance contract that stated that any action must be started within one year after the date of loss or damage. The trial court granted Insurer's motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals reversed, concluding the policy language was ambiguous and that Insurer, by its actions, had waived its right to enforce the one-year limitation clause. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court's grant of summary judgment, holding that Insurer could enforce the limitation-of-action clause contained in its contract because (1) the policy language was not ambiguous, and (2) Insurer did not waive its right to enforce the clause.

A developer was required to make public improvements to be turned over to the city and, in 2006, obtained bonds to ensure performance, as required by ordinance. Work began, but the subdivision failed and subcontractors filed mechanics' liens. The developer notified the city that three foreclosures were pending and recommended that it redeem the bonds. The insurer refused to pay. The city did not follow up, but a subcontractor sued, purporting to bring its case in the name of the city for its own benefit. The subcontractor contends that it should be paid out of the proceeds of the bonds. The case was removed to federal court. The district court dismissed, finding that the subcontractor did not have standing to assert claims on the bonds because it was not a third-party beneficiary to the bonds. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, based on the language of the contract.

In one of Plaintiff Leprino Foods Company's warehouses, flavoring compounds derived from nearby-stored fruit products contaminated a large quantity of cheese. Leprino's "all-risk" insurance policy with Defendant Factory Mutual Insurance Company excluded contamination unless with was caused by "other physical damage." When Factory Mutual refused coverage on the basis of the contamination exclusion, Leprino sued. A jury determined that the contamination was caused by other physical damage and therefore was covered by the Factory Mutual insurance policy. On appeal, Factory Mutual contended the verdict was not supported by the evidence presented at trial. Specifically, Factory mutual argued that: (1) expert testimony was not presented to prove causation; (2) the jury instructions pertaining to Leprino's cold-storage guidelines were given in error; and (3) Leprino's damages should have been reduced by its settlement with the warehouse. Upon review of the trial record and applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit found that Leprino presented sufficient evidence with regard to expert testimony to prove causation. The Court did not find jury instructions to be erroneous. The Court did agree that Leprino's damages should be reduced by the amount of the settlement received from the warehouse. The Court therefore affirmed part and reversed part of the lower court's decisions and remanded the case for recalculation of damages.

A developer built a subdivision in a floodplain. The developer and buyers knew that the land is low-lying and prone to flooding. The developer constructed levees, floodwalls, retention ponds, and a stormwater holding system. The company that handled construction and sale of buildings in Parcel D had the developer fill one of the retention ponds, so that it could build additional homes; it also constructed duplexes where the developer had planned single-family housing. In 2003 several homes were inundated when a retention pond overflowed. In a state court suit, the company settled with homeowners for$335,000; homeowners agreed to take $35,000 from the company and seek the rest from its insurer. A federal court concluded that the company's insurance policy did not apply, reasoning that homeowners had not suffered "property damage" as defined by the policy because the state court complaint sought changes to curtail future loss. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that neither party had asked the court to apportion the settlement between losses and improvements and that it was too late to do so.