Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

This case arose when an ocean-going tanker collided with a barge that was being towed on the Mississippi River, which resulted in the barge splitting in half and spilling its cargo of oil into the river. Following the filing of numerous lawsuits, including personal injury claims by the crew members and class actions by fishermen, the primary insurer filed an interpleader action, depositing its policy limits with the court. At issue was the allocations of the interpleader funds as well as the district court's finding that the maritime insurance policy's liability limit included defense costs. The court affirmed the district court's decision that defense costs eroded policy limits but was persuaded that its orders allocating court-held funds among claimants were tentative and produced no appealable order.

This case arose from an oil spill in the Mississippi River when an ocean-going tanker struck a barge that was being towed. Appellants (Excess Insurers) appealed the district court's decision requiring them to pay prejudgment interest on the funds deposited into the court's registry in an interpleader action. The Excess Insurers argued that the district court erred by: (1) finding that coverage under the excess policy was triggered by the primary insurer's filing of an interpleader complaint; (2) holding that a marine insurer that filed an interpleader action and deposited the policy limits with the court was obligated to pay legal interest in excess of the policy limits; and (3) applying the incorrect interest rate and awarding interest from the incorrect date. The court held that because the Excess Insurers' liability had not been triggered at the time the Excess Insurers filed their interpleader complaint, the district court erred in finding that they unreasonably delayed in depositing the policy limit into the court's registry and holding them liable for prejudgment interest. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment and did not reach the remaining issues.

Federal Insurance Company (FIC) sued for damage to property destroyed during the inland leg of international intermodal carriage where FIC was the subrogee of the shipper which contracted with an ocean carrier, APL Co. Ptc. Ltd. (APL), to ship goods from Singapore to Alabama. The district court ruled that a covenant not to sue in the through bill of lading required FIC to sue the carrier, APL, rather than the subcontractor. At issue was what legal regime applied to the shipment's inland leg under the through bill of lading and whether the applicable legal regime prohibited the covenant not to sue. The court held that the district court did not err by enforcing the covenant not to sue and granting summary judgment to the subcontractor where the requirements that FIC sue APL directly was valid under the Hague Rules and the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), 46 U.S.C. 30701.

A semi-truck jackknifed while making a delivery for a federally licensed carrier and struck a vehicle, killing its driver. The estate brought a wrongful death action in Illinois state court against the driver, his wife (titular owner of the truck), and the company. The suit settled with entry of a $2 million consent judgment against the company, the driver, and his wife. The estate agreed that payment by the company's carrier of the $1 million policy limit would satisfy part of the judgment; the remainder would come from the driver's policy for "Non-trucking/bobtail liability" that covers driving cabs without trailers outside the service of the federally licensed carriers under whose authority drivers operate. That carrier declined coverage, citing a policy exclusion for vehicles "while in the business of anyone to whom ... rented," and obtained summary judgment in federal district court. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, citing 49 C.F.R. 376.2(d)(2), which defines "owner" as including someone like the driver, "who, without title, has the right to exclusive use of equipment" and reasoned that the driver, as agent for his wife, leased the truck to the company, even though the company was unaware that the wife held title.