Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed suit seeking damages from American Family for their individual insurance claims, and the district court later granted American Family's motion to dismiss. The district court denied plaintiffs' motion to amend. Plaintiffs' motion to amend sought to change their theory of the case because the class action petition had challenged the contents of all American Family insurance policies in a declaratory judgment pleading while the proposed second amended petition claimed that American Family breached the contents of the insurance contract. Furthermore, the class action petition sought a class wide injunction, not individual damages, while the proposed second amended petition sought individual damages instead of a class wide injunction. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion because plaintiffs sought to change their theory of liability after their class action petition had been dismissed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Adams v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Busch filed suit against National Union after National Union denied coverage for Busch's expenditures to remediate mold in the condominium complex that it managed. The court concluded that the district court correctly concluded that Busch's payments for mold remediation are not covered under its policy with National Union because its legal obligation to remediate the mold did not spring from "liability imposed by law." The court also concluded that the district court correctly concluded that Busch's maintenance or consent agreements do not trigger coverage under the 1994 policy because those agreements do not constitute a legal obligation to pay as damages for liability assumed by Busch under contract. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Busch Properties, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins." on Justia Law

National Union was ordered to pay part of the costs Continental incurred to defend Valspar against several lawsuits. Valspar intervened and now appeals. The court concluded that National Union had a duty to defend Valspar and therefore has an equitable obligation to contribute to paying the costs of the defense. Neither Valspar’s agreement to pay National Union’s costs, Continental’s agreement not to recover defense costs from Valspar, nor Continental’s alleged failure to pay a small fraction of the costs defeats Continental’s right to contribution from National Union. These are distinct obligations. And National Union’s share of the defense costs paid by the insurers is unaffected by amounts paid by Valspar. Accordingly, the court affirmed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Continental Casualty Co. v. The Valspar Corp." on Justia Law

After the parties' dispute over insurance policy liability coverage, plaintiffs and Cincinnati submitted a joint complaint for declaratory judgment. The court concluded that the district court did not err in finding that the Business Owners Package (BOP) and Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies issued by Cincinnati prohibited stacking where both policies cover the same injury, such that the maximum coverage for the injury is $1,000,000. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Cincinnati. View "Gohagan v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Wolfe filed suit against Universal for a declaration of its rights under an insurance policy, as well as for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay. Universal counterclaimed for declaratory judgment in its favor. The district court granted Universal's motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that, under the plain language of the policy, the umbrella coverage is not available for the injuries alleged in the underlying complaint. Therefore, Universal is entitled to judgment as a matter of law that it is not under a duty to defend Wolfe from the underlying suit except to the extent such a duty may be provided for in the customer complaint defense provision, and consequently that Universal is not under a duty to indemnify Wolfe should there be an award of damages in the underlying suit. Because Wolfe's claims for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay rest on the success of its declaratory judgment action, the court need not address them, nor Universal's remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Wolfe Auto. Grp. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Great West filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that National is contractually obligated to defend and indemnify an owner-operator of a semi-tractor in a pending state court suit. The court concluded that the owner-operator was an "insured" under the National policy; neither two exclusions in the National policy applied; and the exclusion in the Great West policy's applied. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Great West, because the underlying negligence claim against the owner-operator was covered under National's policy and excluded under Great West's policy. View "Great West Cas. Co. v. National Cas. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment allowing Northwestern to rescind a disability insurance policy. The court concluded that Northwestern’s evidence is insufficient to show that it is entitled to summary judgment because the evidence does not address the specific insurance policy at issue in this case. The court concluded that the issue is whether, after the policy went into effect, the failure to cancel the policy increased the risk at the time of the loss, i.e., when plaintiff became disabled and made a claim for benefits. Even if a general aversion to over-insurance is sufficient to prove that plaintiff's breach of his promise to cancel the Great-West policy increased the risk to Northwestern, it does not address whether his breach increased the risk at the time of loss. As to Northwestern's alternative argument, the court concluded that there appears to remain a factual dispute concerning whether plaintiff knew or should have known that the representation at issue was false or was made with intent to deceive. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Weiher" on Justia Law