Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
by
Seahawk filed suit against insurers for proceeds covering the physical damage to a drilling rig and the loss on a drilling contract. The court concluded that, because there were two occurrences, the district court properly denied Seahawk’s claim for the cost of repairs between February and December 2010. That court’s proximate-cause analysis was the correct legal standard for determining the number of occurrences, and the district court did not clearly err in finding that the February storm was not the proximate cause of the sequence of losses following the July storm. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in rejecting Seahawk’s claim under the Contract Provision. The concurrent-cause doctrine applies, and Seahawk could not recover because it failed to comply with the requirements of that doctrine. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment for the insurers. View "Seahawk Liquidating Trust v. Certain Underwriters" on Justia Law

by
Greenwich filed suit after paying an assessment imposed by MWUA. The court held that the FCIC did not intend to preclude MWUA from imposing and enforcing its true-up deadline. The court concluded that the true-up deadline did not directly or indirectly affect MPCI because the deadline did not trigger an assessment improperly based on MPCI premiums. Even Greenwich’s failure to abide by the deadline did not trigger the improper assessment. Rather, Greenwich’s independent actions - specifically, its repeated affirmative statements that the 2003 premium data was correct - triggered the assessment. Thus, “in reality,” Greenwich’s complaint “is directed at the actions of private parties, not the operation of” MWUA deadlines. Because the fault lies not with any law or rule but rather with the acts of a private third party, the court cannot say that the true-up deadline affects MPCI. The court further concluded that the source of Greenwich's trouble is not the acts of just any private parties; Greenwich’s own acts are to blame. And, the actions themselves are not just any actions; they are acts of unjustifiable incompetence. View "Greenwich Ins. C. v. MS Windstorm Underwriting" on Justia Law

by
JSI appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Travelers on JSI's payment bond and bad faith claims. The court concluded that Travelers remains liable to JSI on the payment bond, requiring reversal of the summary judgment granted to Travelers on this claim; JSI is entitled to recovery under the bond and summary judgment on liability for the invoiced amount should have been granted in the amount of $36,346.09; the court remanded for the district court to consider the other fees and costs relevant to JSI’s bond claim; and the court vacated the summary judgment on the bad faith claim and remanded for reconsideration. View "JSI Commc'n v. Travelers Cas. & Surety Co." on Justia Law

by
Liberty insured Cameron, the manufacturer of the blowout preventer used on Deepwater Horizon, for potential losses associated with the blowout preventer. After Cameron settled with BP, Cameron sought coverage from Liberty but Liberty refused to pay. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Cameron on its breach of contract claim; reversed the district court's denial of Cameron's motion for attorney's fees; and remanded for a determination of the proper amount of those fees. The court certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Texas: Whether, to maintain a cause of action under Chapter 541 of the Texas Insurance Code against an insurer that wrongfully withheld policy benefits, an insured must allege and prove an injury independent from the denied policy benefits? View "Cameron Int'l Corp. v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc." on Justia Law

by
Plaintiffs filed suit seeking additional coverage under their flood insurance policy after their home was damaged during Hurricane Ike. The district court denied plaintiffs' claim for additional building coverage on the ground that the total recovery they had already received from insurers exceeded their total loss. As for contents coverage, the district court awarded $2,500 for some car parts damaged in the storm. Both parties appealed. The court concluded that federal common law governing the National Flood Insurance Program recognizes the rule against double recovery and affirmed the ruling that plaintiffs' are not entitled to additional building coverage. However, the court vacated the personal property award to plaintiffs because they concede it was in error. View "Pye v. Fidelity Nat'l Prop. & Cas. Ins." on Justia Law

by
MRMC purchased a primary-insurance policy from Zurich and excess insurance from AXIS. MRMC filed suit to recover under its primary- and excess-insurance policies after suffering losses in a state lawsuit. The trial court granted AXIS summary judgment. The court held that the AXIS policy unambiguously precludes exhaustion by below-limit settlement. In this case, the AXIS policy is not triggered where MRMC pays the difference between Zurich’s liability limit and a below-limit settlement releasing Zurich of any further obligations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Martin Resource Mgmt. Corp. v. Zurich Am. Ins." on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to State Farm in plaintiff's suit contending that State Farm's breach of its fiduciary duty caused the excess judgment in an underlying lawsuit. The court made an Erie guess that the Mississippi Supreme Court would not impose a duty to timely offer to settle a claim in which the claim amount greatly exceeds the policy limits, absent a settlement offer by the third-party claimant. Further, an insurer has no duty to timely disclose the policy limits to a third-party claimant. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in finding no genuine dispute that the excess judgment was not caused by State Farm’s failure to advise plaintiff of his potential excess exposure and right to retain independent counsel. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Hemphill v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins." on Justia Law