Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

This matter stemmed from a public works project for the construction of a gymnasium in Terrytown. JaRoy Construction Inc. served as the general contractor, and pursuant to statute, furnished a surety bond to Jefferson Parish. Ohio Casualty Insurance Company was the surety. JaRoy entered into a written subcontract with Pierce Foundations, Inc. to provide and install pilings for the project. Once finished, Pierce alleged JaRoy failed to pay certain funds due under the subcontract. Pierce sued both JaRoy and Ohio Casualty Insurance, alleging they were jointly and severally liable to Pierce. JaRoy filed for bankruptcy, leaving only Ohio Casualty Insurance as party to the suit. When the project was substantially completed, the Jefferson Parish government filed a notice of acceptance of work with the Jefferson Parish mortgage records office. This occurred over a year after Pierce amended its lawsuit to add Ohio Casualty as a defendant. Pierce never filed a sworn statement of claim in the mortgage records. Ohio Casualty filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that Pierce was required to comply with statutory notice and recordation, and because it failed to do so within 45 days of Jefferson Parish’s acceptance of the project, Pierce could not recover from Ohio Casualty. Pierce argued that the statute did not affect its right to proceed in contract. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Pierce for sums owed under the contract plus judicial interest from the date of the original judgment. Ohio Casualty appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in not dismissing Pierce's claims. The court of appeal reversed and ruled in Ohio Casualty's favor. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed and affirmed the trial court judgment. View "Pierce Foundations, Inc. v. JaRoy Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether two companies (the Insureds) were entitled to coverage under additional excess policies issued to their predecessor by the Excess Insurers and, if so, how indemnity should be allocated across the triggered policy periods. The Delaware Court of Chancery granted summary judgment for the Insureds with respect to the availability of coverage and the allocation of liability under the excess policies, concluding that New York law applied to the dispute, that the Insureds were each entitled to coverage under the excess policies, and that the proper method of allocation was the all sums approach, as compared with the pro rata allocation method propounded by the Excess Insurers. After a trial, the Delaware Superior Court entered judgment largely in the Insureds’ favor. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court concluded that resolution of the parties’ disputes over allocation and exhaustion depended on unsettled questions of New York law. The Court of Appeals answered (1) under New York law, the contract language of the applicable insurance policies controlled the questions certified to the Court; (2) all sums allocation was appropriate based on the language of the policies at issue here; and (3) vertical, rather than horizontal, exhaustion was required before the excess policies attached. View "In re Viking Pump, Inc." on Justia Law

Federated Mutual, the insurer, filed an interpleader suit to determine the rights of Moody Station and the Big Store to insurance proceeds. The district court found Moody Station was not entitled to the full amount and awarded attorney fees to Federated. The court concluded that Moody Station is correct that there is no jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1335’s interpleader because the two adverse claimants are both citizens of Missouri. The court determined that diversity jurisdiction exists in this case because there is diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy is met. Although the district court did not explicitly find a partial loss, the district court implicitly rejected that a total loss occurred. In this case, the district court did not clearly err in determining the actual cash value of the destroyed property. The court concluded, however, that the district court clearly abused its discretion in ordering Moody Station to pay attorney fees to Federated where Federated has consistently opposed Moody Station’s attempts to collect on its policy and is not a disinterested stakeholder deserving attorney fees. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Federated Mutual Ins. Co. v. Moody Station and Grocery" on Justia Law

In 2007, the Sonoma County project’s owner sued Hearn, the general contractor, Second Generation, the roofer, and other subcontractors for design and construction defects. Hearn cross-complained against Second Generation and others. In 2009, Hearn assigned its interests under its subcontracts to two insurers, North American and RSUI. Hearn then settled with the owner and all but two subcontractors, one of which was Second Generation. Hearn filed an amended cross-complaint, purportedly in the name of the insurers, against those subcontractors, adding breach of a contractual obligation to obtain insurance and seeking equitable contribution for Hearn’s defense costs premised on a breach of that duty. In 2013, the court dismissed the cross-complaint against Second Generation on procedural grounds, awarded $30,256.79 in costs and granted prevailing party attorney fees of $179,119. Second Generation moved to amend the orders to name North American as a judgment debtor owing the amounts awarded against Hearn. The trial court denied the motion, stating: Hearn remains the only proper party and that the subcontractor’s exclusive remedy was to pursue a separate action against Hearn’s insurers. The court of appeal reversed, finding that, after the assignment, Hearn was “out of this case.” View "Hearn Pac. Corp. v. Second Generation Roofing, Inc." on Justia Law

NSC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Fireman's Fund, filed a declaratory judgment action against Dustex seeking a judicial determination that it did not have a duty to defend or indemnify Dustex in an arbitration proceeding, which, at the time, was pending before the American Arbitration Association (AAA). The district court subsequently concluded that Dustex failed to establish the affirmative defense of estoppel. The court concluded that, under either Georgia or Iowa law, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Dustex knew or should have known that Fireman's Fund was proceeding under a reservation of rights. The court's review of the district court's findings does not indicate that Fireman's Fund failed to provide Dustex with an effective reservation of rights that included a specific basis for Fireman's Fund's reservations about coverage. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "National Surety Corporation. v. Dustex Corp." on Justia Law

Cummins installed asbestos containing products in California and had received hundreds of asbestos bodily injury claims, including many lawsuits, based on exposure to its asbestos containing materials. Cummins purchased 19 U.S. Fidelity insurance policies 1969-1987, and purchased four U.S. Fire policies, 1988-1992, for “primary, umbrella, and or excess insurance policies,” some of which “may be missing or only partially documented.” Cummins and its parent company (Holding, formed in 2014) sought a “declaratory judgment that defendants are obligated to defend and/or indemnify Cummins [Corp.], in full, including, without limitation, payment of the cost of investigation, defense, settlement and judgment . . . , for past, present and future Asbestos Suits under each of the Policies triggered by the Asbestos Suits.” The trial court dismissed without leave to amend, finding that Holding lacked standing. The court of appeal affirmed. Holding, the controlling shareholder of Cummins, does not have a contractual relationship with the insurers and is not otherwise interested in the insurance contracts. View "D. Cummins Corp. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co." on Justia Law

Columbia Insurance Group, Inc. and Columbia Mutual Insurance Co. (collectively, Columbia) filed a complaint for declaratory judgment to determine Columbia’s obligations under the Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy (CGL policy) issued to its insureds, Arkansas Infrastructure, Inc. and David Barron (collectively, AII). Specifically, Columbia sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify AII with respect to claims brought against AII in state court by Homeowners. A federal district court concluded that Columbia had an obligation to defend AII in the underlying suit. The district court then certified two questions of law to the Supreme Court, asking (1) whether faulty workmanship resulting in property damage to the work or work product of a third party constitutes an “occurrence," and (2) if so, and an action is brought in contract for property damage to the work or work product of a third party, whether any exclusion in the policy bars coverage for this property damage. The Supreme Court (1) reaffirmed the Court’s previous position that a CGL policy does not extend basic coverage for a claim of breach of contract; and (2) held that because there is no coverage under the policy in this case, the certified questions are moot. View "Columbia Ins. Group v. Cenark Project Mgmt. Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

32nd Street filed suit against the insurers for quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and vexatious refusal to pay an insurance claim, as well as injunctive relief arising out of medical services provided to the insurers' insureds. The district court granted summary judgment for the insurers and denied 32nd Street's motion to compel discovery. The court concluded that the plain language of the provisions at issue support the district court's conclusion that, in the ancillary-provider agreement, 32nd Street agreed to accept the Blue Traditional rate for services rendered to insureds belonging to all of the insurers’ networks; the district court did not err by finding that the equitable claims were barred by the contracts governing the reimbursement rates paid by the insurers; the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the insurers on the vexatious-refusal claim where 32nd Street fails to establish any genuine issue of material fact that the insurers refused to pay an amount due under an insurance policy; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying 32nd Street's motion to compel. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "32nd St. Surgery Ctr. v. Right Choice Managed Care" on Justia Law

American Family filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment as to whether an umbrella insurance policy issued to Todd Patton provided any coverage for an automobile accident in which a passenger in a vehicle driven by Todd's son, Jacob Patton, was seriously injured. The district court granted summary judgment for American Family. The court concluded that the Pattons breached the umbrella policy's cooperation clause by entering into a Miller-Shugart agreement after already being protected from personal liability in the Drake-Ryan settlement, and that such breach was material and prejudicial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "American Family Mutual Ins. v. Donaldson" on Justia Law

Stresscon Corporation, a subcontracting concrete company, filed suit against Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, alleging, among other things, that Travelers acted in bad faith, unreasonably delaying or denying its claim for covered insurance benefits; and Stresscon sought awards of two times the covered benefits along with fees and costs, as prescribed by statute. Stresscon’s claims for relief arose from a 2007 serious construction accident which was caused by a crane operator employed by a company that was itself a subcontractor of Stresscon. Stresscon’s general contractor, Mortenson, sought damages from Stresscon, asserting Stresson’s contractual liability for the resulting construction delays, and Stresscon in turn sought indemnification from Travelers. Travelers petitioned for review of the court of appeals’ judgment affirming the district court’s denial of its motion for directed verdict in a lawsuit brought by its insured, Stresscon. Much as the district court had done, the appellate court rejected Travelers’ contention that the no-voluntary-payments clause of their insurance contract relieved it of any obligation to indemnify Stresscon for payments Stresscon had made without its consent. Instead, the court of appeals found that the Colorado Supreme Court's opinion in "Friedland v. Travelers Indemnity Co.," (105 P.3d 639 (2005)) had effectively overruled the Court's prior “no voluntary payments” jurisprudence to the contrary and given Stresscon a similar opportunity. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that its adoption of a notice-prejudice rule in "Friedland" did not overrule any existing “no voluntary payments” jurisprudence. The Court declined to extend a notice-prejudice reasoning to Stresscon’s voluntary payments, made in the face of the no-voluntary-payments clause of its insurance contract with Travelers. View "Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. v. Stresscon Co." on Justia Law