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

Under Minnesota law, when the insurance policy in question refers disputes as to amount of loss to an appraiser, when the question presented by the dispute involves separating loss due to a covered event from a property's preexisting condition, the question of what caused the loss is one for the appraiser to resolve.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of Condor's motion to compel an appraisal. In this case, Condor filed a claim for benefits with its insurer, Axis. Condor then demanded an appraisal because the parties could not agree on the amount of loss. After Axis filed suit for a declaratory judgment that there was no coverage and that the parties' coverage dispute precluded appraisal, Condor filed a motion to compel one, which the district court granted. View "Axis Surplus Insurance Co. v. Condor Corp." on Justia Law

After a tractor manufactured by CNH caught fire, Floyd filed suit against CNH in federal court under a theory of product liability, claiming that its insureds owned the tractor and other property on the tractor, both of which were damaged in the fire, and that Floyd was subrogated to its insureds' claims against CNH because Floyd had paid its insureds' claim for the damage. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332.The Eighth Circuit affirmed and concluded that section 1332's amount-in-controversy requirement was not satisfied in this case. The court concluded that the Iowa Supreme Court would hold that the economic-loss doctrine permits recovery only for the other property and not for the product itself. Accordingly, the Iowa Supreme Court would bar recovery in tort for damage that a defective product causes to itself, even if the plaintiff also seeks recovery for damage to other property. Here, Floyd's recovery is limited as a matter of law to the alleged $22,787.81 in damage to property other than the tractor. The court denied the motion to certify a question of law to the Iowa Supreme Court and upheld the district court's dismissal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Floyd County Mutual Insurance Ass'n v. CNH Industrial America LLC" on Justia Law

Avenoso, a maintenance supervisor, had long-term disability insurance under a Reliance policy, governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B). The policy provided two years of benefits if the claimant showed that he was unable to perform the material duties of his current occupation and provided continued benefits if the claimant showed that he was unable to perform the material duties of any occupation. Avenoso left his job due to lower-back pain and underwent back surgery. Reliance approved two years of benefits. At the end of the two years, Reliance informed Avenoso that it would discontinue benefits because Avenoso had not shown that he was unable to perform the material duties of any occupation.Avenoso had an MRI; the results appeared relatively mild. Avenoso sent Reliance a note from his physician, recommending that Avenoso “avoid lifting, bending and prolonged sitting” due to his lower back condition. He was receiving Social Security disability benefits. Following a “functional-capacity evaluation,” a physical therapist concluded Avenoso did not demonstrate an ability to tolerate an 8-hour workday. An independent medical evaluation concluded that Avenoso retained sedentary-work capacity and was “able to work 8 hours a day but was engaging in “symptom magnification.” A vocational-rehabilitation specialist identified five “viable sedentary occupational alternatives” consistent with Avenoso’s physical capacities. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Avenoso. The district court’s finding that Avenoso lacks sedentary-work capacity was not clearly erroneous. View "Avenoso v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Farm Bureau, alleging breach of contract and seeking a declaratory judgment. Plaintiff's breach of contract claim was based, in part, on an alleged violation of Arkansas Insurance Rule and Regulation 43, which he claimed was incorporated into the policy. The district court granted Farm Bureau's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff then filed a motion to clarify whether the order also disposed of the common law breach of contract theory, which the district court dismissed.The Eighth Circuit agreed that the Arkansas regulation that Farm Bureau allegedly violated is not incorporated into plaintiff's policy, and thus he cannot use it as the basis for a breach of contract claim. However, because plaintiff also states a breach of contract claim based on the policy language, the court reversed in part. In this case, plaintiff alleges that "a 9% reduction on a used vehicle is not typical and does not reflect market realities," and that dealers' actual practice is not to inflate prices above market value because of the "intense competition in the context of internet pricing and comparison shopping." The court explained that, if this is true, then Farm Bureau did not consider the truck's fair market value. Rather, it considered an artificially lower value, in breach of its contractual duty and thus plaintiff stated a claim for breach of contract based on the policy language. Finally, the court denied plaintiff's motion to certify questions of law to the Arkansas Supreme Court. View "Smith v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment holding that Safeco was not liable for coverage for a claim stemming from an accident involving an uninsured driver. In this case, the insured was killed when her motorcycle collided with a car driven by the uninsured driver. The court concluded that the district court did not err in determining that coverage for the accident was excluded under the insurance policy's motorcycle exclusion. Therefore, the policy unambiguously excluded coverage for the insured's accident. View "Safeco Insurance Co. of Illinois v. Palazzolo" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, vehicle owners, filed suit alleging that State Farm violated Arkansas Insurance Rule 43, which governs loss settlements, and thus committed fraud in the inducement, breached their contracts, acted in bad faith, and engaged in an unconscionable, false, or deceptive act or practice in violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA). Plaintiffs' claims stemmed from State Farm's use of a computer-generated vehicle valuation report to determine cash settlement amounts for the vehicle owners' automobiles' total losses. After removal to federal court, the district court dismissed the claims based on its finding that Rule 43 did not provide a private right of action.The Eighth Circuit affirmed on different grounds, concluding that State Farm's settlement practice complied with Section 10(a)(3) of Rule 43. Therefore, the vehicle owners have failed to state a claim. The court explained that Section 10(a)(3) does not require insurers to justify their deviation from the methods prescribed in Section 10(a)(2). Rather, the Rule requires only that insurers thoroughly document any value deductions when they deviate from Sections 10(a)(1) and (2). In this case, State Farm's valuation reports, which are attached to the vehicle owners' complaint, clearly set forth the itemized deductions and additions in compliance with Section 10(a)(3). Furthermore, the report fully explained the basis for the final settlement amounts. View "Moffitt v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a utility-locating service, USIC, in an action brought by Spire, a gas company, and its insurers, seeking full indemnification from USIC, as well as a declaratory judgment that USIC would be liable for all future settlements as well, without regard to fault. The court held that, under Missouri's anti-indemnification law, Mo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 433.100.1, Spire could not use the parties' contract to seek indemnification for its own negligence or wrongdoing. The court explained that, even if Spire is right that "construction work" does not ordinarily include marking and flagging the location of gas lines, it makes no difference here because Missouri has adopted a broader definition of "construction work." View "Spire Missouri, Inc. v. USIC Locating Services, LLC" on Justia Law

The bankruptcy trustee sued Cornerstone on the insured's behalf, alleging that Cornerstone breached its duty to defend the insured by failing to timely file an answer to a complaint filed against him. The insurance policy was in effect when the insured's car collided with another vehicle.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Cornerstone on the trustee's claim because Cornerstone had no duty to defend when the insured did not strictly comply with a condition precedent to coverage. In this case, the insured was required to strictly comply with the policy provision mandating that he promptly forward the legal papers he received to Cornerstone, but he failed to do so. Furthermore, the actions of the claims representative did not waive the policy's requirement that the insured promptly forward any legal papers to Cornerstone, nor did they estop Cornerstone from denying coverage based on noncompliance. View "Dowden v. Cornerstone National Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Westfield Insurance in an action seeking a declaratory judgment that it owed no obligations to Advanced Auto, Advanced Auto's employee, or their insurer, Carolina Casualty. The court agreed with the district court that neither the employee nor Advanced Auto was an "insured" under the policy that Westfield Insurance issued to Westfield Insurance's insured, Worldwide. In this case, when Worldwide turned over the truck to McNeilus, Worldwide had no control over who was driving the truck until McNeilus finished its work and returned the truck to Worldwide. View "Westfield Insurance Co. v. Carolina Casualty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that Selective denied insurance coverage in bad faith and the district court's award of taxable costs and prejudgment interest. In this case, Selective sought a declaration of no coverage for the insured's hailstorm-damaged property, alleging fraud by misrepresentation and breach of contract. The insured counterclaimed and later added a claim for bad faith denial of benefits under Minn. Stat. 604.18, which would entitle him to taxable costs. A jury found in favor of the insured and a panel of appraisers assessed damages. The court concluded that the district court did not err in allowing the insured's section 604.18 claim to proceed; there was no error in awarding taxable costs under section 604.18, subdivision 2(a), based on the district court's determination that no reasonable insurer would have relied on any of Selective's proposed bases to deny defendant's hail claim for fraud; and there was no error in the district court's award of prejudgment interest. View "Selective Insurance Company of South Carolina v. Sela" on Justia Law