Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Three female employees of Metro Paramedic Services sued Metro and Antioch Rescue Squad, alleging an unrelenting practice of egregious sexual harassment, assault and battery, retaliation for whistleblowing, and failure to supervise. They alleged that Antioch and Metro were a partnership or joint venture, jointly staffed and operated. Metro used Antioch ambulances, and employees of both entities used Antioch uniforms and gear. Two of the employees resolved their claims, based on an offer of judgment from Metro and Antioch; the third reached a settlement with both. AAIC, Antioch’s liability insurer, covered Antioch’s defense costs and indemnified its offers of judgment and settlement, but insisted that it had no obligation to cover Metro under Antioch’s policy and sought a declaratory judgment. The district court found, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, that AAIC owed Metro a duty to defend. The policy stated, “If you are ... a partnership or joint venture, you are an insured. Your members and your partners are also insureds but only within the course and scope of your operations.” The arrangement qualified as a joint venture. View "Am. Alternative Ins. Corp. v. Metro Paramedic Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

In 2008, the Marchettis purchased real estate for $180,000, with a loan for that amount, plus $155,000, for planned improvements. Jonathon Marchetti acted as buyer, real-estate broker, mortgage broker, and general contractor. Three months earlier, Jonathon had been indicted for mortgage and wire fraud regarding other real-estate transactions. He ultimately pleaded guilty. The parcel, which the Marchettis nominally acquired from Seville, actually was owned by Lekich. A series of sham transactions orchestrated by Hodgman made it look as if Seville held title. In 2010 Lekich sought to quiet title. The Lender had the property appraised at $110,000, agreed to accept $110,000 from a Chicago Title Insurance policy as full satisfaction, and released the Marchettis from liability. Lekich’s suit settled. Chicago Title became subrogated to the Marchettis’ claims against their predecessors in title. Hodgman was indicted. Chicago Title obtained $37,500 in restitution. The Marchettis sued, claiming that Chicago Title owed them $37,500 from Hodgman, plus the $88,000 difference between the maximum value of the policy and the amount paid the Lender. The Marchettis had the property appraised for $202,000, and claimed that the insurer had to disburse the policy’s $198,000 maximum value. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Chicago Title. Market value matters only as one determinant of how much loss the owner suffers. The Marchettis suffered no loss; they had no equity interest in the property. View "Marchetti v. Chicago Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Construction Contractors (CC), was formed to perform employment functions for regional construction employers, who would transfer funds into CC’s accounts to cover gross payroll, taxes, benefits, and administrative costs. CC would disburse the funds to satisfy subscribers’ obligations. In 2002, CC outsourced its daily operations to AlphaCare. In 2012, AlphaCare informed CC that there were insufficient assets to meet obligations, although the subscribers had paid enough money to fulfill their respective obligations. An AlphaCare manager (Moon) had been falsifying financial statements. CC terminated its agreement with AlphaCare. An investigation revealed that the IRS had started levying CC accounts in 2011. CC owed more than $1.25 million, plus penalties, in unpaid taxes dating back to 2005. AlphaCare had also failed to remit $715,000 in Ohio unemployment taxes for the first quarter of 2012.CC’s CFO, VanDenBerghe, determined that Moon had committed wire fraud by transferring over $900,000 from CC’s account to AlphaCare’s account from 2009-2012. VanDenBerghe continued investigating; about $1 million was still missing. CC applied for a crime-coverage insurance policy, with coverage for employee theft, from Federal Insurance. After Federal executed the policy, CC determined that Moon had misappropriated the missing $1 million. Federal denied CC’s claim for that loss. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Federal, concluding that any loss caused by one employee is considered a “single loss” under the policy and that CC had “discovered” the loss before the execution of the policy. View "Constr. Contractors Employers Group, LLC v. Fed. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Midwest, alleging that an insurance agent carelessly and negligently failed to designate plaintiffs as owners of the insurance policy at issue. The district court concluded that the complaint failed to state a viable claim and dismissed the case. The court concluded that, under the policy, control over the policy during the lifetime of the insured - including the power to name a new owner - belonged solely to the insured in this case. Therefore, Midwest cannot be liable for negligence for failing to do something it had no power to do. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Carlson v. Midwest Prof'l Planners" on Justia Law

The Bjornebys insured their farming operation with a Nodak Mutual insurance policy. Bryan Hurst was their insurance agent. During potato harvest, a fire started in the break room of the Bjornebys' potato washing facility. The fire spread and caused substantial damage. The Bjornebys filed an insurance claim, and Nodak Mutual covered a number of losses. Nodak Mutual, however, refused to cover certain potatoes because the Bjornebys reported the potatoes after they became aware of the fire. The Bjornebys sued alleging Nodak Mutual breached their insurance contract and Hurst was negligent. A jury returned a general verdict in the Bjornebys' favor; the verdict did not allocate liability between Nodak Mutual and Hurst. Nodak Mutual and Hurst moved for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, a new trial. The district court denied their motions. Both Nodak Mutual and Hurst appealed. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Bjorneby v. Nodak Mutual Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Freestone Insurance Company was a Delaware-domiciled insurer that was placed in liquidation. The liquidation proceeding was governed by the Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act (the Uniform Act). The order that placed Freestone into liquidation contained an injunction (the Anti-Suit Injunction) barring third parties from pursuing claims against Freestone other than through the statutory process for receiving evaluating, and paying claims (the Claims Process). U.S. Bank National Association (the Bank) moved to lift the Anti-Suit Injunction, claiming that it wished to litigate against Freestone outside of the Claims Process and establish the amount of its claims and its status as a general creditor of Freestone. The Court of Chancery denied the Bank’s motion, holding that granting relief on the facts of this case would contravene the policies of the Uniform Act, interfere with the Claims Process, and impose unnecessary costs on Freestone and the Insurance Commissioner of the State of Delaware, who was serving as the receiver for Freestone. View "In re Liquidation of Freestone Ins. Co." on Justia Law

A truck being driven by an employee of Tony’s Long Wharf Transport, LLC was on an intrastate trip entirely within Connecticut when the truck collided with a car being driven by Renee Martinez, causing Martinez injuries. Martinez sued Tony’s for negligence and obtained a judgment that remained unpaid. Martinez sought to collect the unpaid judgment from Tony’s insurer, Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company, but Empire denied it was responsible for Tony’s liability under its policy with Tony’s. In dispute between the parties was whether a federally mandated insurance endorsement included in the policy, known as an MCS-90 endorsement, applies only to liability arising during interstate transportation or applies even if the accident occurs during an entirely intrastate trip. The trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of Empire, concluding that the MCS-90 endorsement applies only to accidents occurring while the motor carrier’s vehicle was traveling in interstate commerce. The Appellate Court affirmed on an alternative ground. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the MCS-90 endorsement applies only to liability arising from the transportation of property in interstate commerce, and (2) the particular trip at issue in this case did not qualify as the transportation of property in interstate commerce. View "Martinez v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the insured of Dairyland, sustained bodily injury and property damage while operating his motorcycle. After paying plaintiff all proceeds to which he was entitled under the Dairyland policy, and after plaintiff had settled with the tortfeasor's insurer, Dairyland sought and obtained subrogation from the tortfeasor's insurer for the property damages that it previously paid to plaintiff. Plaintiff then demanded Dairyland pay him the funds it obtained on its subrogation claim. When Dairyland refused, plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract and bad faith. The court concluded that the made whole doctrine does not apply to preclude Dairyland from retaining the funds it received from its subrogation claim because the equities favor Dairyland: (1) Dairyland fully paid plaintiff all he bargained for under his Dairyland policy, which included the policy's limits for bodily injury and 100% of plaintiff's property damage; (2) plaintiff had priority in settling with the tortfeasor's insurer; and (3) if Dairyland had not proceeded on its subrogation claim, plaintiff would have had no access to additional funds from the tortfeasor's insurer. The court also concluded that Dairyland did not act in bad faith. Accordingly, the court reversed the court of appeals decision in all respects. View "Dufour v. Progressive Classic Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Home Loan Investment Company, a financial institution, held a deed of trust on a property in Grand Junction, Colorado, known as White Hall. The owner had stopped making payments on the loan and offered Home Loan a deed to White Hall in lieu of foreclosure. Home Loan opted instead to work with the owner in selling the property, with the hope of being paid out of the proceeds of the sale. Because the owner indicated she could no longer pay insurance premiums on White Hall, Home Loan contacted St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company to obtain coverage for the value of its loan. On September 15, 2011, White Hall was nearly destroyed in a fire. Home Loan tendered a claim to St. Paul for the loss, equal to the outstanding loan balance. St. Paul denied Home Loan’s claim because White Hall did not meet the definition of “foreclosed property” in Home Loan’s policy. St. Paul determined Home Loan had never been a mortgagee in possession of the property and therefore White Hall did not qualify as a Foreclosed Property. Home Loan filed suit in Colorado state court, alleging claims for common-law breach of contract and violations of sections 10-3-1115 and 10-3-1116 of the Colorado Code, which provided a statutory remedy for unreasonable delay or denial of insurance benefits. St. Paul removed the action to federal court, invoking diversity jurisdiction. Prior to trial, St. Paul moved for summary judgment, but the district court denied the motion. At trial, St. Paul argued Home Loan never had “possession” or “care, custody, or control” of White Hall sufficient to trigger coverage under the policy. St. Paul further maintained that, because its coverage decision was “fairly debatable,” it could not have acted unreasonably for purposes of the Colorado statutes. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Home Loan and against St. Paul on both the common-law breach of contract claim and the statutory claim. St. Paul did not challenge the jury’s verdict on Home Loan’s breach of contract claim; the only questions before the Tenth Circuit concerned Home Loan’s statutory bad faith claim under Colorado law. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court on all issues. View "Home Loan Investment Co. v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Defendant was a tenant of condominium unit (Unit 1801) when unit’s bathtub overflowed and leaked into the condominium units below, causing damage. Pacific Indemnity Company, which insured Unit 1601, brought an action seeking to recover the amount it had paid to the owners of Unit 1601. As the unit’s subrogee, Pacific sought to recover damages in the amount of $351,159 as well as pre-judgment interest and costs. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Deming, determining that Pacific’s rights to subrogation were waived based on a clause in the bylaws of the condominium trust that unit owners “shall carry insurance,” and that “all such policies shall contain waivers of subrogation.” The First Circuit reversed, holding (1) the plain language of the condominium’s Bylaws, Master Deed, and Declaration of Trust is that the required waivers of subrogation do not apply to tenants; and (2) even if the Bylaws did require unit owners to purchase insurance that contains waivers of subrogation as to claims against tenants, because Defendant presented no evidence that Unit 1601’s owners actually waived their insurer’s subrogation rights against tenants, Pacific can pursue its claims. View "Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Deming" on Justia Law