Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

This dispute concerned the MSA's indemnification provision and the insurance agreements supporting M-I's indemnification obligations. At issue was whether, pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1333(a), Louisiana law governed the indemnity provisions. The court affirmed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment, finding that the OCSLA applied to the parties' contractual dispute, and thus, pursuant to the OCSLA choice of law provision, Louisiana law applied, under which the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act (LOIA), La. Rev. Stat. 9:2780(B), invalidated the indemnity provisions. View "Ace American Ins. Co. v. M-I, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Freeport and Brand Energy were named defendants in a personal injury suit in Texas state court. Freeport sought defense and indemnity from ACE, its insured, in the state court proceedings under Brand Energy's insurance policy with ACE. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of ACE, holding that it had no duty to defend Freeport in the state court proceedings because Freeport was not covered as an additional insurer under Brand Energy's insurance policy with respect to the underlying state court claims. The court remanded for a determination of whether ACE had a duty to indemnify Freeport for the cost of its settlement in the state court proceedings. View "ACE American Ins. Co. v. Freeport Welding & Fabricating" on Justia Law

National Union brought this suit against AEC, seeking contribution to National Union's settlement of claims arising from the crash of a helicopter operated by National Union's insured. On appeal, National Union challenged the Texas district court's choice-of-law ruling and the Hawaii district court's refusal to allow jurisdictional discovery regarding AEC's Hawaii contacts before transferring the case. Because the court lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals of the Hawaii district court's orders, the court agreed with the Texas district court's choice-of-law ruling, and affirmed the judgment. View "National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. American Eurocopter Corp., et al." on Justia Law

This was an interlocutory appeal from the district court's grant of class certification in a case involving allegations that the defendant title insurance company charged premiums for title policies that exceeded the refinance rates set by the Texas Department of Insurance in Tex. Ins. Code Rate Rule R-8. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's grant of class certification and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) were satisfied, as none of the four questions identified by the district court was actually common to the class and common questions would not predominate at trial. View "Ahmad v. Old Republic Nat'l Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The original opinion in this case was filed on June 15, 2012. Because this Texas diversity law case involved important and determinative questions of Texas law as to which there is not controlling Texas Supreme Court precedent, the panel withdrew the previous opinion and substituted the following certified questions to the Texas Supreme Court: (1) Does a general contractor that enters into a contract in which it agrees to perform its construction work in a good and workmanlike manner, assume liability for damages arising out of the contractor's defective work so as to trigger a contractual liability exclusion in a CGL insurance policy; and (2) if the exclusion is triggered, do the allegations in the underlying lawsuit alleging that the contractor violated its common law duty to perform the contract in a careful, workmanlike, and non-negligent manner fall within the exception to the contractual liability exclusion for "liability that would exist in the absence of contract." View "Ewing Constr. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co." on Justia Law

After its property sustained wind damage during Hurricane Katrina, a real-estate developer sued its insurance provider for coverage, and, in the alternative, its insurance agent for professional negligence. The district court decided that the insurance policy covered wind damage, and a jury decided that there had been no "mutual mistake" between the agent and the provider concerning wind coverage. As a consequence, the district court dismissed with prejudice the developer's negligence claim against its agent. The insurance provider appealed, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, deciding that the policy did not cover wind damage. On remand, the developer moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to set aside the dismissal of its professional negligence claim against the agent in light of the reversal. The district court granted the motion and resurrected the negligence claim against the agent. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the developer Rule 60(b) relief. View "Lowry Dev., LLC v. Groves & Assocs. Ins., Inc." on Justia Law

The underlying personal injury case stemmed from an injury suffered by Dentist on the premises of Condominium. Condominium had general liability coverage issued by Primary Insurer and excess coverage through Excess Carrier. Dentist sued Condominium which submitted the cause to Primary Insurer to provide a defense. The jury awarded Dentist $1,654,663. Condominium demanded that Excess Carrier pay the amount in excess of the primary coverage amount. Excess Carrier contested coverage for late notice, contending it did not have notice of the personal injury action until the day of the verdict. Sister Company to Primary Insurer paid the remaining amount under its supersedeas bond after Excess Carrier denied responsibility for that amount. Sister Company allowed Primary Insurer to bring this lawsuit against Excess Carrier in Sister Company's name. At issue on appeal was whether the failure to give Excess Carrier notice prior to the jury verdict forfeited coverage it would otherwise owe. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Sister Company. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that, under the facts of this case, the failure to give notice to Excess Carrier until after an adverse jury verdict constituted evidence of prejudice that forfeited coverage. View "Berkley Reg. Ins. Co. v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

After coming home drunk, Wesley Vincent was found face-down in front of his house by his wife, Cheryl Likens. Vincent was taken to the hospital but eventually died. Likens tried to collect as the beneficiary of an accidental-death insurance policy, but the claim was denied under an alcohol exclusion because Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company determined that the injury resulted from being legally intoxicated from alcohol. The district court granted summary judgment for Hartford based on the alcohol exclusion. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a reasonable jury could not help but conclude that Vincent fell and suffered injuries as a result of his intoxication. On these facts, intoxication may not have been the only cause, but it did not have to be so to satisfy the exclusion. View "Likens v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Dameware Development, LLC Defined Benefit Pension Plan and Trust bought several life insurance policies from American General Life Insurance Company. After Dameware was unable to obtain the tax benefits it hoped would result from purchasing the policies, it sued American General for damages and for rescission of the contract. The district court granted summary judgment to American General. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Dameware had not shown any basis for rescinding the contract nor any contractual duties breached by American General, and therefore, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to American General. View "Dameware Dev., LLC v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Appellant was injured in a car accident. The other car in the accident was owned by Amanda Salgado, a superintendent of a church (the Church), and driven by Michael Meyer, a member of the Church. The accident occurred while Meyer and other Church members were taking a lunch break from cleaning and repairing Church property. Appellant sued the Church, Salgado, and Meyer in state court. The Church's insurer (Insurer) then sought a declaratory judgment in federal court resolving whether its insurance policy covered Appellant's accident. The district court held that Insurer had no duty to defend the Church and Salgado. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court's judgment, holding that the district court (1) erroneously held that Insurer had no duty to defend the Church and Salgado, (2) improperly adjudicated the scope of Insurer's duty to indemnify, and (3) improperly asserted jurisdiction over Appellant's state-law claims. Additionally, the Court held (1) Insurer had a duty to defend the Church and Salgado in Appellant's underlying state lawsuit, and (2) the scope of Insurer's duty to indemnify could not be adjudicated until after Appellant's claims are decided in state court. View "GuideOne Specialty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Missionary Church of Disciples of Jesus Christ" on Justia Law