Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London (“Lloyds”) brought an intervenor complaint against Cox Operating LLC (“Cox”) seeking to recover maintenance and cure benefits Lloyds paid to an injured seaman. Cox filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Lloyds bears responsibility for the payments under a protection and indemnity (“P & I”) policy under which Cox is an assured. The district court agreed and granted the motion. Lloyds timely appealed.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that even if there were ambiguity as to the term “intended operations,” as included in the limitation on the waiver of subrogation, any such ambiguity is to be resolved “in favor of coverage.” Because the M/V SELECT 102 was engaged in its “intended operations” at the time of the seaman’s injury and the limitation on the waiver of subrogation does not apply, Lloyds waived its subrogation rights as to Cox. Thus, the court affirmed the he district court’s dismissal of Lloyds’s intervenor complaint. View "Certain Underwriters v. Cox Operating" on Justia Law

On July 12, 2018, Sunbelt Shavings, LLC (Sunbelt), requested that an employee from KC Welding, LLC (KC Welding), come to Sunbelt’s property to repair the door of a box containing wood chips. KC Welding arrived and welded the box; later that night, a fire started at Sunbelt’s property. The fire was extinguished on July 13, 2018. Three years later, on July 13, 2021, Western World Insurance Group (Western World), as the subrogee of Sunbelt, Shuqualak Lumber Co., and Wood Carriers, Inc., sued KC Welding for breach of contract and negligence. KC Welding moved to dismiss the case as untimely. On May 2, 2022, the trial court granted KC Welding’s motion, dismissing Western World’s complaint as untimely. Western World appealed. Finding that Western World had until July 12, 2021, to bring a timely claim against KC Welding, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint as untimely. View "Western World Insurance Group v. KC Welding, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant Compass Minerals Louisiana, Inc. (“Compass”) is part of a mineral company that owns and operates multiple salt mines. Among Compass’s locations is its Cote Blanche salt mine. Compass contracted with Louisiana-based companies Fire & Safety Specialists, Inc. (“FSS”) and MC Electric, LLC (“MCE”). An electrician employed by MCE died in an accident at the Cote Blanche salt mine. Both FSS and MCE held a commercial general liability policy with QBE. QBE filed a declaratory action in federal court, asserting that the indemnification and additional-insured provisions in the FSS and MCE purchase orders are “null, void, and unenforceable” under the Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act (“LOAIA”). The court rejected QBE’s argument that Compass “drills for” salt by using the drill-and-blast method for breaking a salt wall. It concluded, relatedly, that the term “drilling for minerals” in the LOAIA “should be construed as referring to the drilling of a well.” QBE appealed.   Finding no clear and controlling precedent on this issue of Louisiana law, the Fifth Circuit certified two questions to the Louisiana Supreme Court: 1.     Does the Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act, La. Stat. Ann. Section 9:2780, apply to provisions in agreements that pertain to “drilling for minerals,” even where the agreement does not “pertain to a well”? 2.     If the Act applies to agreements that pertain to “drilling for minerals,” irrespective of the agreement’s nexus to a well, does the Act apply to invalidate these indemnification and additional-insured provisions contained in contracts for fire suppression and electrical work in a salt mine, by virtue of the salt mine’s use of a “drill-and-blast” method for mining salt? View "QBE Syndicate 1036 v. Compass Minerals" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint brought by a first deed of trust holder against its title insurance company for breach of contract and related claims, holding that there was no error.The insurer in this case denied coverage to a first deed of trust holder for its loss of interest in property following a foreclosed upon a "superpriority piece." At issue was whether the first deed of trust holder could recover for its loss of interest in the subject property by making a claim on its title insurance policy. The district court granted the title insurance company's motion to dismiss as to all claims, concluding that no coverage existed under the policy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing were properly dismissed; and (2) the first deed of trust holder was not entitled to relief on its remaining allegations of error. View "Deutsche Bank National Trust v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Venequip, a Venezuelan heavy-equipment supplier, sold and serviced products made by Illinois-based Caterpillar. Venequip’s dealership was governed by sales and service agreements with CAT Sàrl, Caterpillar’s Swiss subsidiary. In 2019 CAT Sàrl terminated the dealership. The contracts contain clauses that direct all disputes to Swiss courts for resolution under Swiss law. In 2021 Venequip brought contract claims against CAT Sàrl in Geneva, Switzerland. Venequip filed applications across the United States seeking discovery from Caterpillar and its employees, dealers, and customers under 28 U.S.C. 1782(a), which authorizes (but does not require) district courts to order any person who resides or is found in the district to give testimony or produce documents “for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal.” Venequip’s Northern District of Illinois application sought wide-ranging discovery from Caterpillar.Ruling on Venequip’s application, the district judge addressed four factors identified by the Supreme Court (Intel) that generally concern the applicant’s need for discovery, the intrusiveness of the request, and comity considerations, and added the parties’ contractual choice of forum and law and Caterpillar’s agreement to provide discovery in the Swiss court, then denied the application. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The appeal was not mooted by intervening developments in the Swiss court. The judge appropriately weighed the Intel factors and other permissible considerations. View "Venequip, S.A. v. Caterpillar Inc." on Justia Law

Defendants United Services Automobile Association and USAA General Indemnity Company (“USAA”) contract with insureds to pay “Actual Cash Value” (“ACV”) for totaled vehicles. USAA calculates ACV using the CCC One Market Valuation Report (“CCC”) rather than, e.g., the National Automobile Dealers Association guidebook (“NADA”) or Kelley Blue Book (“KBB”). Plaintiffs are USAA-insureds whose vehicles were totaled and who received ACV as determined by CCC. Plaintiffs alleged that CCC violates Louisiana statutory law, that they would have been paid more if USAA used NADA, and that they are owed the difference. Plaintiffs sought certification for a class of USAA-insureds who were paid less under CCC, and the district court granted it. USAA appealed class certification. On appeal, the parties dispute, among other things, whether common questions across the class involving damages and liability predominate over individual differences between class members, as required for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).   The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded. The court held that Plaintiffs failed to show injury and therefore failed to establish USAA’s liability on a class-wide basis because they failed to demonstrate entitlement to the NADA values for their totaled vehicles. The court held that with respect to Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim, the district court’s choice of NADA is not simply an arbitrary choice among imperfect damages models. It is an arbitrary choice of a liability model, and a district court’s wide discretion to choose an imperfect estimative-damages model at the certification stage does not carry over from the context of damages to the context of liability. View "United Svcs Automobile v. Sampson" on Justia Law

Sixteen professional models (the Models) sued three Texas strip clubs (the Clubs) following the Clubs’ use of the Models’ likeness for advertising campaigns without the Models’ consent. Relevant to those claims, Princeton Excess and Surplus Lines Insurance Company (PESLIC) filed this declaratory judgment action. PESLIC issued two commercial liability insurance policies to the Clubs covering the time period relevant to the Models’ claims. PESLIC named both the Models and the Clubs as Defendants. The parties disputed whether that policy’s Exhibitions and Related Marketing Exclusion rendered illusory the Personal and Advertising Injury coverage. The district court agreed with the Models and the Clubs that it did. The district court also held that PESLIC had a duty to indemnify the Clubs under the 02 Policy. PESLIC appealed.   The Fifth Circuit reversed, rendered in part, and remanded. The court explained that PESLIC does not have a duty to defend the Clubs under the 01 Policy. Its duty to indemnify under the 01 Policy depends on the final resolution of the state case. As for the 02 Policy, PESLIC does not have a duty to defend or indemnify under it because the 02 Policy does not provide coverage for the claims alleged by the Models. The court held that the district court erred by concluding otherwise. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court’s summary judgment, rendered in part, and remanded the remaining issue of indemnity under the 01 Policy with instructions for the district court to stay disposition of that issue pending final resolution of the underlying state court lawsuit. View "Princeton Excess v. AHD Houston" on Justia Law

After Plaintiff sustained serious injuries from a hot-soup spill at Noodle College Park, an Atlanta-area restaurant, she and her spouse sued Shou & Shou, Inc., which owned and operated the restaurant. Shou & Shou tendered the defense to and sought coverage from AmGuard Insurance Company. But AmGuard denied coverage on the ground that the policy named “Noodle, Inc.”—an entity that did not exist—as insured. Shou & Shou settled the suit and assigned the Lowerys its rights under the policy. Plaintiffs, as assignees, then sued AmGuard for equitable reformation of the policy. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and later entered a final judgment.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that reformation of the policy was proper under Georgia law. The court explained that the district court correctly equitably reformed the 2016–17 policy to insure the true owner of the restaurant. The court explained that AmGuard insists that it could not have shared Shou & Shou’s mistake because it did not know the “identity” of the intended insured and could not have intended to “name” Shou & Shou as an insured. But Georgia law does not demand that degree of specificity in defining a mutual mistake. Further, the court held that Plaintiffs claim of breach of contract merges with reformation of the policy. View "Hee Lowery, et al v. AmGuard Insurance Company" on Justia Law

After a fatal truck accident claimed the lives of members of two families, the victims' families filed a personal injury action against the trucking company. The trucking company's insurer ultimately transferred $1 million to the law firm representing one of the families. The insurer then notified the other family that the policy limits had been exhausted. That same day, the insurer submitted two checks: one to the victim's family and one to the law firm.The family that was not party to the settlement filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition against the trucking company. The trustee brought an adversary proceeding against the other victim's family and their law firm, seeking to avoid and recover the transfer of the policy proceeds pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Secs. 547 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy court denied the law firm's motion to dismiss.On appeal, the family that settled and the law firm argued that the district court erred in determining that the trucking company held an equitable property interest in the policy proceeds. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding that these facts fit the "limited circumstances" under which the policy proceed are considered the property of the estate. View "Law Office of Rogelio Solis v. Curtis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment after determining that Plaintiff's claim for underinsured motorist benefits against American Family Insurance Company was time-barred, holding that Plaintiff's action was untimely.Plaintiff sought underinsured motorist benefits against American Family Insurance Policy, but the district court determined that the action was barred by a two-year limitation provision in the insurance policy. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of American Family. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly found that Plaintiff's action was untimely. View "Rose v. American Family Insurance Co." on Justia Law