Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut appealed a judgment in which it was ordered to pay $251,913.91 to Willie A. Miller. Smith House Movers, Inc. (Smith), was hired was hired to move houses located in the path of road construction to be performed. Miller entered into a contract with Smith to purchase one of the houses and to move it from Red Bay to Vina. The contract provided that Smith was to move the house, pour a foundation, and place the house on the new foundation. Smith cut the house into two pieces and delivered the first piece. However, the foundation was improperly poured and did not fit, and the house had been damaged in the move. Ultimately Miller had to hire another company to complete the move and repair the damage. Miller then sued Smith alleging breach of contract, negligence and wantonness. Smith did not answer or appear, and Miller moved to a default judgment against Smith. In an attempt to collect the amount of the default judgment, Miller sent a copy to Smith's general liability insurer, Travelers. As Miller tried to get Travelers to respond to its demand, Miller learned that Smith had declared bankruptcy. Two years following the default judgment, the bankruptcy trustee lifted its stay on Smith's affairs to allow him to collect on the default judgment to the extent that the insurance coverage would allow. Travelers subsequently denied the claim. Miller then sued Travelers for payment. Travelers moved for summary judgment to dismiss Miller's claim, arguing that the general liability policy did not provide coverage based on the terms in the policies. The trial court denied the motion, and eventually entered judgment against the company. Travelers then appealed to the Supreme Court. The issue before the Court was whether the notice of the original lawsuit was timely. The Court found that because Miller's knowledge of Smith's certificate of insurance from the underlying lawsuit put Miller on notice that he should have notified Travelers of the default judgment. As such, the Court concluded that Miller was barred from recovering under Smith's policies. The Court reversed the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Defendant National Security Fire & Casualty Company appealed a circuit court order that certified a class for a class action lawsuit. Plaintiff Maurice DeWitt's mobile home was damaged by Hurricane Katrina, and at the time of his loss, Plaintiff was insured by National Security. In 2007, Plaintiff filed suit in circuit court against National Security and other insurance companies alleging that the Defendants breached his insurance policy when they did not include a 20% "general contractor overhead and profit" (GCOP) amount in its loss payment. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged the insurance companies did not take into account Plaintiff's loss and the need for additional general contractor services in rebuilding his home. Plaintiff sought to represent similarly situated policyholders whose claims were allegedly miscalculated in the same fashion. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Plaintiff did not satisfy his burden of establishing the predominance and superiority requirements to certify his class action. Accordingly, the Court held that the trial court exceeded its discretion in cerfifying the class.

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.