Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

A car dealership, Broadway Ford Truck Sales, Inc., in St. Louis, Missouri, suffered a significant fire damage to its business premises and filed claims under its insurance policy provided by Depositors Insurance Company. However, disputes arose over the coverage and Broadway Ford sued Depositors for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted summary judgment favoring Depositors.At the time of the fire, Broadway Ford had an insurance policy that covered loss or damage to its Building and Business Personal Property (Building/Property) and loss of Business Income and Extra Expenses (BI/EE) due to a suspension of operations. Broadway Ford and Depositors later entered into a Limited Settlement Agreement and Release of Disputed Property Damage Claims (LSA), in which Depositors agreed to pay a certain amount for the fire damage and Broadway Ford released Depositors from any claims related to the property damage. BI/EE claims were not included in this agreement and remained open.Broadway Ford’s complaint against Depositors alleged that Depositors breached the policy's implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and that Depositors’ conduct amounted to vexatious refusal under Missouri law. The district court granted Depositors' motion for summary judgment, finding that Broadway Ford’s complaint was foreclosed by the LSA. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo.The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court found that Broadway Ford had released its claims related to the Building/Property coverage in the LSA and could not pursue litigation for additional compensatory damages in the form of the “business income” it lost and the “extra expenses” it incurred due to Depositors’ alleged mishandling of its Building/Property coverage claim. View "Broadway Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Depositors Insurance Company" on Justia Law

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the case involved defendant Glenda Taylor-Sanders, a licensed insurance agent, who pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud. Taylor-Sanders had used her position to defraud several trucking companies and an insurance finance company, BankDirect Capital Finance, by misappropriating funds meant for insurance premiums and obtaining loans under the guise of non-existent insurance policies. She used the funds for personal expenditures, leading to the lapse of some of the trucking companies' insurance policies.In her plea agreement, Taylor-Sanders agreed to pay full restitution to all victims harmed by her relevant conduct, and she waived all rights to contest the conviction and sentence in any appeal, unless it was due to ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct. However, she later attempted to withdraw her guilty plea, arguing that she didn't fully understand the implications of her plea and that she never acted with the requisite intent to defraud. The district court denied her motion to withdraw the plea, concluding that her claim was not credible and that she had not provided a fair and just reason to withdraw her guilty plea.After being sentenced to 66 months' imprisonment and ordered to pay over $700,000 in restitution, Taylor-Sanders appealed her conviction, sentence, and the restitution order. She argued that her guilty plea wasn’t knowing and voluntary, that the district court miscalculated her offense level, and that the district court made several errors when awarding restitution.The Court of Appeals found that Taylor-Sanders's guilty plea and plea waiver were valid and the issues she raised on appeal fell within the scope of her appeal waiver. The court distinguished between claims that a sentence is "illegal" because the district court lacked the authority to issue the sentence (which remain reviewable despite an appeal waiver) and claims that a sentence was "imposed in violation of law" because it has otherwise merely "been touched by a legal error" (in which case the court will enforce the appeal waiver). The court dismissed Taylor-Sanders's appeal in its entirety. View "US v. Taylor-Sanders" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit heard an appeal by Armory Hospitality, LLC, an event venue in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Armory had an insurance policy with Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company and filed a claim to recover its business losses due to the closure of bars, restaurants, and performance venues for over a year by Minnesota’s Governor in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The insurer denied the claim, leading to Armory suing. However, the district court dismissed Armory’s complaint, holding that the policy did not cover the losses, a decision which Armory appealed.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision. The court interpreted the insurance policy under Minnesota law, which requires unambiguous policy language to be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Armory sought coverage under three clauses in its policy: the Building Coverage clause, the Business Income clause, and the Civil Authority clause. The first two clauses required “direct physical loss of or damage to” Armory’s property, which the court decided had not been met since the closure of the venue due to the pandemic did not satisfy the physicality requirement. The court disregarded Armory's argument that the "loss of" property included its inability to use its venue, citing previous precedent requiring physicality for both "loss of" and "damage to" property.As for the Civil Authority clause, the court found that Armory could not prove a causal link between the contamination of nearby properties (a hospital and a jail) by COVID-19 and the Governor’s orders to close venues. Hence, the court concluded that Armory could not recover under any of the clauses in its policy, and therefore affirmed the district court's dismissal of Armory's complaint. View "Armory Hospitality, LLC v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In this case, a joint venture between Watershed Ventures, LLC and Patrick M. McGrath failed, leading to bankruptcy and litigation. McGrath and two investment vehicles he controlled sought coverage from Watershed's insurer, Scottsdale Insurance Company, under a directors and officers liability policy. Scottsdale denied coverage and sought a declaratory judgment as to its coverage obligations. McGrath countered with claims against Scottsdale and third-party claims against Watershed. The district court issued two summary judgment decisions. The first ruled that McGrath is an insured under the policy, while the second dismissed one of McGrath's counterclaims. The parties agreed to a "Stipulated Conditional Final Judgment Subject to Reservation of Rights of Appeal," which would become void if either of the district court’s two summary judgment rulings were partly vacated or reversed on appeal. The parties appealed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed both Scottsdale's appeal and McGrath's cross-appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, concluding that the Stipulated Conditional Final Judgment was not a "final decision" under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The court reasoned that the Stipulated Conditional Final Judgment did not resolve all claims of all parties, was not entered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), and did not finally resolve whether Scottsdale breached its duty to defend under the policy. View "Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. McGrath" on Justia Law

In this case before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Joseph Tambellini, Inc. and HTR Restaurants, Inc., along with other businesses, had their business interruption insurance claims related to the COVID-19 pandemic denied by their insurer, Erie Insurance Exchange. The businesses had sued Erie in various courts across Pennsylvania. Due to the factual and legal overlap among these claims, the businesses moved for all state-wide litigation to be coordinated in Allegheny County for all pre-trial and trial purposes under Rule of Civil Procedure 213.1.Erie appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed in part and reversed in part. According to the Superior Court, the trial court exceeded the authority of Rule 213.1 by ordering the coordination of similar actions against Erie that had not yet been filed. The Superior Court further held that the businesses were parties who were empowered by Rule 213.1 to file the motion for coordination.Upon the parties’ cross-appeals, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted review of both holdings. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania agreed with the Superior Court that the trial court lacked authority to coordinate actions that had not yet been filed. Furthermore, the Supreme Court found that Erie had waived any argument that the businesses could not seek coordination when it failed to raise this issue in the trial court. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s order. View "Tambellini v. Erie Insurance" on Justia Law

In a dispute arising from insurance coverage for business interruption losses during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, various businesses, including Joseph Tambellini, Inc. and HTR Restaurants, Inc., had sued their insurer, Erie Insurance Exchange, for denial of their claims. The businesses moved for the coordination of all state-wide litigation, including future filings, in Allegheny County under Rule 213.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows for the coordination of actions in different counties that involve a common question of law or fact. The motion was granted by the trial court, but on appeal, the Superior Court held that the trial court exceeded the authority of Rule 213.1 by ordering the coordination of similar actions against Erie that had not yet been filed.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania agreed with the Superior Court. The court found that the term "pending" in Rule 213.1 clearly refers to cases that have already been filed, and does not include cases that are imminent or impending. The court further noted that Erie had waived the argument that the plaintiffs were not entitled to seek coordination as it had not raised this issue in the trial court. The Superior Court's order was affirmed, holding that Rule 213.1 does not permit the coordination of actions that have not been filed at the time of the coordination motion and Erie had waived its argument that the plaintiffs were not entitled to seek coordination. View "HTR Restaurants v. Erie Insurance" on Justia Law

Brian Smith, a Rhode Island resident, sued Prudential Insurance Company of America for breach of fiduciary duty after the company terminated his long-term disability benefits under an insurance policy. The policy stated a three-year limitations period to file a lawsuit, which began on the date Smith was required to submit proof of his disability, not on the date Prudential allegedly breached the policy by stopping payment. Consequently, by the time Smith filed his lawsuit, the limitations period had expired. Smith appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit after the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted summary judgment in favor of Prudential on the grounds that Smith's lawsuit was filed too late.Smith argued that enforcing the limitations scheme would violate Rhode Island public policy. While the Court of Appeals found compelling reasons to believe that the limitations scheme might indeed contravene Rhode Island public policy, they also recognized that reversing and remanding on that ground would potentially expand Rhode Island law. Consequently, the Court of Appeals decided to certify the public policy question to the Rhode Island Supreme Court. The certified question is whether, in light of specific state laws and Rhode Island public policy, Rhode Island would enforce the limitations scheme in this case to bar Smith's lawsuit against Prudential. View "Smith v. Prudential Insurance Company of America" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) reinstating the jury's verdict and judgment for Tiare Franco's family (the Francos) after granting Sabio Reinhardt's motion to set aside the jury verdict and judgment, holding that the ICA erred.The Francos brought a wrongful death lawsuit against Reinhardt for negligently crashing a truck and killing Tiare. National Interstate Insurance Company (NIIC), the truck's insurer, filed a declaratory judgment action claiming it had no duty to defend and indemnify Reinhardt under the policy. The circuit court granted summary judgment for NIIC, and the Francos successfully appealed. Before the ICA resolved the declaratory action appeal, the circuit court held a jury trial, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Francos. Counsel for Reinhardt moved to set aside the jury's verdict. The trial court granted the Francos' ensuing motion to disqualify counsel and Reinhardt's motion to set aside the jury verdict and judgment. The ICA reinstated the jury's verdict and judgment, holding that Reinhardt's counsel lacked authority to act as his lawyer. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's judgment and affirmed the circuit court's orders, holding that the circuit court correctly denied the Francos' motion to disqualify counsel and did not abuse its discretion by granting Reinhardt's motion to set aside. View "Franco v. Reinhardt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company in this lawsuit it brought seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify its insureds under the circumstances, holding that the circuit court did not err.Agtegra Cooperative brought the underlying lawsuit alleging that Mike Grunewaldt and Nancy Grunewaldt were liable to Agtegra for damages related to its delivery of wheat contaminated with fertilizer to Agtegra's elevator. State Farm, the Grunewaldts' insurance company, then commenced a separate lawsuit arguing that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the Grunewaldts to pay any judgment arising from the allegations in Agtegra's action. The circuit court granted summary judgment for State Farm. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly held that State Farm had no duty to defend or indemnify the Grunewaldts in the lawsuit initiated by Agtegra. View "State Farm v. Grunewaldt" on Justia Law

The Homeowners Association alleged that M/I’s subcontractors caused construction defects in a Hanover Park development by using defective materials, conducting faulty workmanship, and failing to comply with building codes. The Association alleged that it would be required to repair the defects and “damage to other property caused by the [d]efects.” M/I demanded a defense from Acuity as the additional insured on a commercial general liability policy that Acuity issued to one of its subcontractors on which M/I was an additional insured. Acuity sought a declaratory judgment, arguing that the complaint failed to allege any “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” as those terms are defined by the policy and interpreted by Illinois law. The circuit court granted Acuity summary judgment.The Illinois Supreme Court held that the allegations sufficiently fall within the initial grant of coverage requirement that there be “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.” The court remanded for further consideration of whether policy exclusion bar coverage. To hold that all construction defects that result in property damage to the completed project are always excluded would mean that the exclusions in the policy related to business risk become meaningless. The business risk exclusions contemplate that some construction defects that result in property damage are covered and some are not, depending on various factors. View "Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC" on Justia Law