Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Robinson marketed and sold camouflage products that, according to Robinson, would eliminate human scent so that wild game, with their acute sense of smell, would not be able to detect a hunter's presence. Consumers who had purchased these products brought class action lawsuits against Robinson, claiming that Robinson's products did not actually eliminate human odor (collectively, "the underlying lawsuits"). Robinson sought defense and indemnification from it's insurer, Westfield, but Westfield declined coverage. Instead, Westfield brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that the policy did not cover the underlying lawsuits. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Westfield where Westfield was under no obligation to defend or indemnify Robinson in the underlying lawsuits and where Robinson waived its argument premised on the reasonable-expectations doctrine. View "Westfield Ins. Co. v. Robinson Outdoors, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant was a former employee and sole stockholder of RSI Holdings. RSI Holdings was the sole stockholder of the debtor. This appeal involved a dispute over a life insurance policy where defendant's estate was listed as the beneficiary. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirmed the bankruptcy court's summary judgment determination that the bankruptcy estate was entitled to the cash value proceeds of the life insurance policy debtor had obtained for defendant during her employment. View "Kaler v. Bala" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's order granting Mutual's motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his breach of contract claim for Mutual's denial of coverage under an insurance policy. Plaintiff's failure to qualify for the wrestling tournament precluded him from participating in the tournament as an athlete. Plaintiff's only role at the tournament was as a spectator, and thus he was not participating in the wrestling tournament as a student athlete when he was injured. Because plaintiff was not an insured person under the policy, the district court did not err in granting Mutual's motion for summary judgment. View "Deatley v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co." on Justia Law

A bus owned by the Church was involved in a single-vehicle accident caused by the driver's negligence. At the time of the accident, the Church was insured by two policies issued by Argonaut, a Commercial Auto Policy (Policy) and underinsured motorist insurance (UIM). Recognizing that personal injury claims would greatly exceed the policies' combined coverages, Argonaut commenced this diversity interpleader action. Applying Arkansas law and interpreting the Policy, the court affirmed the district court's conclusion that the Policy unambiguously allowed aggregate recovery of the limits of both coverages. View "Argonaut Great Central Ins. Co v. Casey, et al" on Justia Law

West commenced this diversity action to recover expenses incurred in defending Miller in a garnishment action, asserting tort claims under Missouri law against RLI for vexatious refusal to pay, bad faith refusal to pay, and prima facie tort, and claims of negligence and negligent misrepresentations against RLI's independent claims agent, ASCK. West also sought a declaration that it owed no duty to protect RLI in the underlying arbitration. RLI counter claimed, alleging that, prior to the arbitration, West negligently and in bad faith refused to settle the underlying claims for less than its policy limits. West's response added claims for indemnification and contribution against ASCK. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment dismissing RLI's refusal-to-settle counterclaim and remanded for further proceedings. The court declined to review the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing West's affirmative defenses to the counterclaim. In all other respects, the court affirmed the district court's orders and judgment. View "West American Ins. Co. v. RLI Ins. Co., et al" on Justia Law

Decedent, father of plaintiffs, died without naming a beneficiary of his Unum life insurance. Plaintiffs sued Unum, asserting a breach of the policy and an Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1002 et seq., violation. The district court concluded that they lacked standing and dismissed the suit. The court concluded that the estate's decision not to appeal precluded the children from having a reasonable or colorable claim to benefits. Because plaintiffs could not become entitled to benefits, the court held that the district court properly dismissed the case. View "A.J., et al v. UNUM, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought a declaratory action seeking a ruling that their insurance policies issued to defendants did not cover class claims brought in state court by Percic Enterprises. The state court complaint alleged that defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C), by sending unsolicited fax advertisements. After a settlement was reached in the state action, the federal district court concluded that damages sustained by sending unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the TCPA were covered under the advertising provision of the policies. The court affirmed, applying standard Minnesota principles of insurance contract interpretation where unambiguous words were given their plain, ordinary, and popular meaning, and ambiguous language was construed in favor of the insured. View "Owners Ins. Co., et al v. European Auto Works, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's denial of their motion to remand their suit against Chicago Title to state court. The court held that Chicago Title had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million and affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to amend. Finally, the court declined to afford plaintiffs with the specific relief sought where plaintiffs have not moved under Rule 60(a) for the district court to correct the judgment or for the court to grant leave for the district court to correct the clerical error at issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hartis, et al v. Chicago Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant Goding was a beneficiary of an Employee Retirement Insurance Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., Plan administered by Drury. Goding sustained injuries in a slip and fall accident and received benefits from the Drury-administered Plan, as well as compensation through the settlement of a civil suit related to those injuries. Pursuant to a subrogation provision in the ERISA Plan, Drury attempted to secure reimbursement from Goding for the benefits it paid but was unable to do so after Goding declared bankruptcy. Drury then attempted to obtain that reimbursement from the firm that represented Goding. The court affirmed the district court's finding that Drury could not obtain such reimbursement because the firm had not agreed to the Plan's subrogation provision and consequently was not contractually bound by it; Drury could not maintain a suit against the firm in equity and could not bring a state cause of action for conversion against the firm; and the firm should be awarded attorneys' fees for successful defense of a subsequent motion. View "Treasurer, Trustees of Drury Ind. v. Goding, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sought coverage from their insurer for damage sustained to their home. After the insurer denied their claim, plaintiffs sued for declaratory relief. The district court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs appealed. The court affirmed the judgment and concluded that the policy exclusion for "any loss caused by" faulty construction was applicable and rejected plaintiffs' contention that the damage caused by the intrusion of water into their home was "an ensuing covered loss" for which they were owed coverage. View "Friedberg, et al. v. Chubb & Son, Inc., et al." on Justia Law