Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Brooks was riding her bicycle when Lawrence negligently struck her with his car. Lawrence later died of unrelated causes. Brooks sued Lawrence’s estate, which settled for the $50,000 limit of Lawrence’s auto insurance policy. Brooks agreed not to seek additional recovery from Lawrence’s estate, heirs, or insurer, but retained the right to seek recovery from the Brookses’ auto insurance policy (Midwestern), which provides underinsured motorist (UIM) bodily injury coverage. On the declarations page for the UIM endorsement, the policy states, “Insurance is provided where a premium entry is shown for the coverage.” This page lists “Underinsured Motorist Bodily Injury” with liability limits of $100,000 per-person and $300,000 per-accident. A premium amount appears for each of five vehicles, indicating the Brookses pay a premium for UIM coverage for each vehicle. Midwestern paid $100,000, declaring this per-person limit the maximum amount for a single application of the policy’s UIM coverage, then sought declaratory judgment that its UIM coverage limits for multiple vehicles do not stack to multiply the per-person limit. Granting Midwestern summary judgment, the district court determined the plain language of the policy makes it “quite clear” intra-policy stacking is prohibited and the per-person limit for one accident is $100,000. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. View "Midwestern Indem. Co. v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Villanueva was the contact to the police department for her neighborhood watch group, communicating with Officer Moreno. She told Moreno that her ex-husband (Alvaro) had assaulted her. Moreno did not file a report or take official action, but spoke with Alvaro about the incident. Moreno began spending time alone with Villanueva, touching her, and sending sexually explicit messages. The relationship became sexual. Villanueva ended the relationship and began experiencing what she believed was harassment. She saw unknown cars parked outside her house and received anonymous threatening phone calls referencing private conversations between Villanueva and Moreno. Villanueva believed Moreno orchestrated the harassment. Villanueva reported to the Scottsbluff police. Officers were dispatched after many calls, but they generated only two reports and took no official action. Villanueva, diagnosed with PTSD, filed suit, citing the Equal Protection Clause and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The district court construed Villanueva’s complaint to allege substantive due process violations of her rights to bodily integrity and to be free from state-created danger, granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on the constitutional claims, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The evidence did not suggest Moreno coerced Villanueva into sexual relations through an abuse of authority so egregious and outrageous that it shocked the conscience. View "Villanueva v. City of Scottsbluff" on Justia Law

Johnson’s trucking business operated 1986 and 1987 semi-tractor trucks, with one truck at a time insured through Acuity. In 2009, Johnson called Acuity’s agent, Holden, to switch insurance coverage to the 1987 truck. The 1987 truck broke down the next day. Johnson called Holden to switch the insurance back to the 1986 truck. A year later, Johnson's 1986 truck, pulling a J&B trailer, collided with Marlow’s vehicle, causing her death. Western insured the trailer. Holden claimed that Johnson had called in February 2010 and requested to switch coverage to the 1987 truck. Johnson denied ever making that request. At trial, Johnson pointed out that the 1987 truck remained inoperable; Johnson operated the 1986 truck throughout 2010. Johnson’s February 2010, renewal policy identified the 1986 International as covered. Johnson advised J&B that he would use the 1986 truck. Acuity and Johnson settled. The court denied Acuity’s motion to dismiss Johnson. Western's cross-claim against him remained pending; Johnson had assigned his claims against Western to Acuity and Acuity agreed to indemnify Johnson. Acuity paid $561,000 to Marlow’s estate and sought reimbursement. The court viewed the dispute as whether Johnson instructed Holden to change the coverage and rejected Acuity’s claim that Western lacked standing. The jury found that Johnson did not request a change. The court declared that Acuity had to provide primary insurance coverage. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the controversy did not concern contract reformation and upholding the district court's decision to allow Johnson to participate at trial. View "ACUITY v. Johnson," on Justia Law

Oliver was manager and part-owner of PSC. Oliver and PSC sought to refinance property on Lake Superior. Meecorp required additional collateral. Oliver identified 14 other income-producing properties and his interest in each. The sum of the “Oliver values” was more than $1 million. Gandolf, owned by Oliver and PSC, supplied: cash-flow projections, the value of Oliver’s interests, member-control agreements, certificates of good standing, and Schedule K-1s for Gandolf-owned LLCs associated with each property. Gandolf did not supply the deeds of ownership. Meecorp concluded that Oliver, individually, could not pledge adequate collateral for a loan of $1.32 million, having no direct interest in the properties. Meecorp requested that Gandolf, as owner of the remaining governance rights and the 100% owner of the financial rights, pledge its interests in the LLCs. Oliver, as Gandolf’s representative, signed the pledge. Meecorp delivered the funds. Oliver and PSC defaulted. Meecorp learned that neither Oliver nor Gandolf’s LLCs owned the pledged properties; Gandolf’s LLCs were general partners in undisclosed limited partnerships that owned each property. Undisclosed limited partners owned up to 99.99% of the equity in the properties; limited-partnership organizational documents prohibited the general partners (LLCs) from pledging their interests without consent. Meecorp sued. The district court granted Meecorp summary judgment on its breach-of-the-note claim against PSC and its breach-of-guaranty claim against Oliver, awarding $2,366,191.88, and entered judgment against Gandolf for breach-of-the-guaranty and against Gandolf, Oliver, and PSC for fraud. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. View "Meecorp Capital Mkts., LLC v. Oliver" on Justia Law

Howard allegedly rear-ended Gumby's vehicle, Gumby sued Howard and his employer, UPS. Contending that Gumby’s health might have contributed to the accident, UPS requested information including medical records and the identity of anyone with knowledge concerning this defense. Gumby provided the names of one physician and one hospital from which he had received pre-accident care. Gumby died a year later. Comstock, Gumby’s daughter and estate administrator, was substituted as plaintiff. A year after discovery began, Comstock produced documents revealing more medical providers, but did not produce all requested information. The court ordered Comstock to complete production by September 28. She failed to do so. In December 2012, Comstock provided UPS with over 3,000 pages of documents. Some were duplicates, but new documents showed that Gumby had vision problems; suffered dizziness, paranoia, and hallucinations while driving; had been instructed not to drive at night; and had been hospitalized hours before the accident. Comstock had called law enforcement that night, worried because Gumby, had left Pennsylvania to drive to Arkansas. UPS had already deposed Gumby and family members. The district court noted further misconduct concerning expert test results. The court found “extreme prejudice” and sanctioned Comstock under FRCP37(b)(2) by dismissal. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. View "Comstock v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc." on Justia Law

Paulino suffered a spinal-cord injury in a work-related accident that left him permanently paraplegic. Employer's workers’ compensation insurer was Chartis. After medical treatment and intensive rehabilitation, Paulino moved to CCS for post-acute rehabilitation. When Paulino was capable of basic self-care, CCS set a discharge date of April 30. Paulino had workers’ compensation income of less than $400 per week and was ineligible for other assistance as an undocumented Mexican national. He required wheelchair-accessible housing, an electric hospital bed, and access to public transportation. His case manager was unable to locate suitable, affordable housing acceptable to Paulino. CCS refused to discharge Paulino to a residence not adequately adapted to Paulino’s needs. Chartis continued to pay medical bills and was prepared to pay for modifications to a permanent home, but notified Paulino that it would not pay his CCS living expenses (rent, utilities, groceries, cable television) after April 30. On May 6, Chartis withdrew those payments. Paulino continued to reside at CCS. A court affirmed the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commissioner's conclusion (Ia Code 85.27) that special circumstances case made Paulino's continued stay at CCS appropriate and compensable. Paulino sued, alleging bad-faith denial of benefits as of May 6, seeking consequential and punitive damages. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Chartis. View "Paulino v. Chartis Claims, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Pliva, manufacturer of the prescription medication metoclopramide, alleging that the medication caused her to develop tardive dyskinesia. On appeal, plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of her claims. The court concluded that the prescribing physicians' exclusive reliance on information from the brand-name manufacturers broke any causal link between Pliva's failure to incorporate the 2004 label change and the plaintiffs' injuries; to the extent plaintiff alleges failure to warn claims against Pliva based on the allegedly inadequate content or manner of delivery of the 2004 warnings, her claims are squarely preempted by federal law; because plaintiff failed to explain how Pliva could avoid liability under Missouri law for the alleged design defects without changing its product, changing its labeling, or leaving the market, plaintiff's design defect claims - whether sounding in strict liability or negligence - are preempted by impossibility; and federal law preempts plaintiff's implied warranty claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Brinkley v. Pliva, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Malone and others after he was injured by a pipe saddle. The jury returned a verdict for Malone and plaintiff appealed, raising numerous issues on appeal. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give plaintiff's proffered instruction; the district court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury regarding OSHA regulations; the court rejected plaintiff's claim that the district court's comment regarding Instruction 15 was improper and prejudiced him such that he should receive a new trial; the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing testimony regarding what procedures contractors other than Malone were using when working overhead on the same project; and the district court did not err in failing to grant plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law as to Malone's third-party claim against Gilbert Project Services. The district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law because reasonable minds could disagree as to whether Gilbert had a duty to plaintiff or Malone prior to or on the day of the accident. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Reed v. Malone's Mechanical, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Sammy Hagar after he published an autobiography in which he alleged that plaintiff had extorted him by claiming she was pregnant with his child. The district court granted summary judgment for Hagar on all of plaintiff's claims. Applying Iowa law, the court concluded that the district court erred by granting summary judgment on the libel per se claim where Hagar's statements are defamatory as a matter of law, plaintiff has shown the existence of a fact issue regarding whether the challenged statements were "of and concerning" her, and the evidence was sufficient to submit the question of substantial truth to the jury. The court also concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the false light invasion of privacy claim where questions of fact exist as to whether the challenged statements were sufficiently publicized. The court agreed with the district court's ruling that, with respect to evidence of emotional distress, plaintiff put forth conclusory statements; the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the breach-of-contract claim where a jury must decide the ultimate issue of breach; and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing because Hagar's statement's did not deprive plaintiff of the benefits under a negotiated agreement between the parties.View "Doe v. Hagar" on Justia Law

This case arose when an investment advisor committed fraud by opening a doing-business-as ("d/b/a") bank account using the name of his employer when he did not have the employer's authority to do so. The employer's insurance company subsequently filed suit against the bank, alleging that the bank negligently failed to inquire into whether the former advisor had authority to open the d/b/a account. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the suit because the bank owed no recognized duty to the employer.View "National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Hometown Bank, N.A., et al." on Justia Law