Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, E&I Global Energy Services, Inc. and E&C Global, LLC, sued Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for breach of contract and tort claims related to a construction project. The United States, through the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), contracted with Isolux to build a substation, and Liberty issued performance and payment bonds for Isolux. After Isolux was terminated, Liberty hired E&C as the completion contractor, but E&I performed the work. Plaintiffs claimed Liberty failed to pay for the work completed.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota granted summary judgment for Liberty on the unjust enrichment claim and ruled in Liberty's favor on all other claims after a bench trial. The court denied Plaintiffs' untimely request for a jury trial, excluded an expert witness report filed after the deadline, found no evidence of an assignment of rights between E&C and E&I, and ruled against Plaintiffs on their fraud, deceit, and negligent misrepresentation claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the jury trial request, as Plaintiffs failed to timely file the motion and did not justify the delay. The exclusion of the expert report was also upheld, as the district court properly applied the relevant factors and found the late report was neither substantially justified nor harmless. The court affirmed the district court's finding that there was no valid assignment of rights from E&C to E&I, meaning Liberty's promise to pay was to E&C, not E&I. The court also upheld the findings that Liberty did not have the intent to deceive or induce reliance, and that Bruce did not reasonably rely on Mattingly's statements. Finally, the court declined to address the unjust enrichment claim as Plaintiffs did not raise the argument below. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings in their entirety. View "E&I Global Energy Services v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Bob Robison Commercial Flooring Inc. (BRCF) was hired to install a vinyl gym floor at a middle school in Trumann, Arkansas. BRCF subcontracted the painting of volleyball and basketball lines to Robert Liles Parking Lot Services (Liles). Liles's work was faulty, leading to the rejection of the gym floor. BRCF had to remove and replace the floor, incurring a cost of $181,415.39. BRCF submitted a claim to RLI Insurance Company (RLI) under its builder’s risk policy, which RLI denied, citing an exclusion for losses caused by workmanship errors.BRCF filed a lawsuit in state court for declaratory judgment and breach-of-contract damages. RLI removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The district court denied RLI’s motion to dismiss, finding that BRCF had stated plausible claims. However, after limited discovery, the district court granted RLI’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the policy unambiguously excluded coverage for damage resulting from defective workmanship.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. BRCF argued that the policy’s ensuing loss clause should restore coverage for the replacement cost of the vinyl gym floor. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the policy was not ambiguous and that the ensuing loss clause did not apply because the damage was solely caused by the excluded peril of faulty workmanship. The court concluded that BRCF failed to identify a separate covered peril that would trigger the ensuing loss clause, and thus, the entire loss was excluded from coverage. View "Bob Robison Commercial Floor v. RLI Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Evanston Insurance Company issued commercial umbrella liability policies to Nooter, LLC, covering the period from July 1, 1981, to July 1, 1985. Evanston sought a declaration in the Eastern District of Missouri that it no longer had a duty to defend or indemnify Nooter in ongoing state court asbestos-related personal injury litigation. Evanston claimed that its policy limits were exhausted as of December 29, 2022, after tendering the remaining available limits to Nooter.Previously, Nooter and Evanston litigated insurance coverage issues in Missouri state court, where it was determined that Evanston had a duty to defend and indemnify Nooter against asbestos exposure claims. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict against Evanston for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay claims. Nooter filed a motion for contempt in state court, which was denied, but the court noted that Evanston's tender of policy limits did not fulfill its duty to defend.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal of Evanston's complaint based on claim preclusion. The court held that Missouri's prohibition on claim splitting applied, as the claims arose from the same contracts and transactions involved in the state court litigation. The court found that Evanston's indemnity and defense obligations had already been decided by Missouri courts, and thus, the federal court lacked jurisdiction over the claims. The court also affirmed the denial of Evanston's motion to amend the complaint and the motion to deposit funds as moot. The dismissal was without prejudice to Evanston's ability to seek relief in state court. View "Evanston Insurance Company v. Nooter, LLC" on Justia Law

First Baptist Church, located in Fort Smith, Arkansas, had property insurance policies with Zurich American Insurance Company. The church experienced leaks over the years and hired roofing companies to repair portions of its roofing system in 2016, 2017, and 2018. In 2022, a roofing company representative determined the roofing system had hail damage, and First Baptist filed a claim with Zurich, alleging the damage occurred on April 28, 2017. Zurich denied the claim, citing no damage from the alleged hail event and evidence of excluded causes such as wear and tear. First Baptist sued Zurich for breach of contract and insurance bad faith.The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas granted summary judgment in favor of Zurich, concluding that First Baptist failed to comply with the prompt notice provision in the insurance policy. The court based its decision on evidence first discussed in Zurich’s reply brief, which indicated that First Baptist knew of past loss or damage to its property as early as 2016. The court held that no reasonable jury could find that First Baptist promptly notified Zurich of the loss or damage nearly six years later in January 2022. First Baptist filed a motion to reconsider, which the district court denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that there were potential genuine disputes of material fact not properly litigated. The court noted that First Baptist did not have a fair opportunity to counter Zurich’s evidence and arguments about past leaks and repairs. The court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further consideration of the issues related to past loss or damage and the effect on First Baptist’s claims. The court also reversed and remanded the grant of summary judgment on First Baptist’s bad faith claim. View "First Baptist Church v. Zurich American Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Sioux Steel Company, a South Dakota corporation, designed and manufactured a new line of hopper bins for grain storage. After selling one of these bins to a distributor in Mexico, the bin failed catastrophically, causing fatalities and property damage. Sioux Steel had an insurance policy with the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ISOP), which included a professional services exclusion. ISOP denied coverage based on this exclusion, leading Sioux Steel to settle with the affected party without ISOP's involvement.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota granted summary judgment in favor of ISOP, finding that the professional services exclusion in the insurance policy was unambiguous and applicable, thus precluding coverage. The court also dismissed Sioux Steel's claims for bad faith, punitive damages, and attorney's fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the professional services exclusion was clear and unambiguous. The exclusion applied because the damage arose from professional engineering services provided by Sioux Steel's employee and an external engineering firm. The court also found that ISOP did not breach its duty to defend, as no civil proceeding or alternative dispute resolution process had been initiated with ISOP's consent. Consequently, Sioux Steel's claims for breach of contract and insurance bad faith were dismissed, and the district court's judgment was affirmed. View "Sioux Steel Company v. Ins. Co. of the State of PA" on Justia Law

3M filed an insurance claim to recover losses incurred on a number of investments due to fraud perpetrated by its own investment advisors. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Insurers, holding that the ownership requirement of Endorsement 8 applies to the Employee Dishonesty provision. Therefore, 3M does not own the stolen earnings and cannot seek coverage for the earnings under the Policy. Until the earnings were distributed to the partners, the stolen earnings were property of WG Trading, not 3M. The court explained that it is fundamental that property acquired with partnership funds is partnership property, and individual partners do not own partnership assets until the winding up of the partnership. Finally, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., does not alter general commercial property rights, but merely defines the nature and scope of the fiduciary duties owed to plan participants. View "3M v. National Union Fire Insurance" on Justia Law

The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Underwriters after Underwriters denied coverage based on the flood exclusion of the insurance policy at issue. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hudson's motion to strike Underwriters' expert's opinion, because only a few days had passed at most between when Underwriters obtained their expert's opinion and disclosed it to Hudson; the term "flood" in this insurance contract was unambiguous and the court adopted the definition of "flood" given in Ebbing v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.; and Hudson's submission of lay testimony that the storm generated strong wind gusts and a photograph of the downed utility pole did not create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether wind or flood caused the damage to the docks, nor that the force generated from the flood waters directly or indirectly caused the damage to the marina's docks. View "Hudson Enterprises v. Certain Underwriters" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against F&G, an insurance company and its affiliates, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), alleging that F&G committed numerous acts of mail and wire fraud in the course of a bookcooking scheme. The district court granted F&G's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted based on the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. 1012(b). The court concluded that plaintiff's RICO claims would interfere with state regulation of the insurance business, and the claims were thus barred by the McCarran-Ferguson Act. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Ludwick v. Harbinger Group, Inc." on Justia Law

After Kelly D. Williams died when her car was hit by Dylan A. Meyer's vehicle, her parents submitted a claim for underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. AMCO filed suit seeking a declaration of no coverage under Kelly's auto policy, and the district court granted summary judgment for AMCO. Under Missouri law, the court applied the general rules of contract construction when interpreting the policy. In this case, the court concluded that, because the bodily-injury liability for Meyer's vehicle was greater than the policy's UIM liability limit, Meyer's vehicle was not an "underinsured motor vehicle." The court rejected plaintiffs' claims that the policy was ambiguous and concluded that the district court did not err in finding the policy was neither ambiguous nor misleading. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "AMCO Insurance v. Williams" on Justia Law

After he was injured, an ARI employee filed a civil suit against ARI and was awarded over $1.5 million in damages. ARI then sought insurance coverage against Hartford. The district court granted summary judgment for Hartford. The court affirmed, concluding that ARI did not strictly comply with the policy's notification provision and forfeited any right to recover from Hartford. Furthermore, the Hartford attorney did not unambiguously deny coverage and thus Hartford is not estopped from enforcing its notice provision. View "American Railcar Industries v. Hartford Insurance Co." on Justia Law