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

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

Rodenburg purchased a Commercial Umbrella Liability Policy from Cincinnati. In the underlying action, a plaintiff filed suit against Rodenburg, asserting several theories including wrongful garnishment, tort-based claims, and violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Rodenburg filed a claim under the policy for coverage of the underlying lawsuit, but Cincinnati denied coverage.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Cincinnati, concluding that the policy did not provide coverage for the underlying lawsuit and Cincinnati had no duty to defend Rodenburg under the policy. In this case, the underlying complaint alleged "personal and advertising injury" that was not "caused by an 'occurrence.'" The court explained that any potential liability arose either directly or indirectly from conduct that was alleged to violate the FDCPA, however, and was thus excluded from coverage by the Violation of Statutes Exclusion. Therefore, Cincinnati did not breach its contractual duty to defend Rodenburg. View "Rodenburg LLP v. Cincinnati Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit held that an accidental death and dismemberment insurance policy does not qualify as a health plan under Maine law, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 24-A, 4303. Therefore, Unum Life's decision to deny benefits is subject to a deferential abuse of discretion standard of review. In this case, substantial evidence supported Unum Life's conclusion that intoxication contributed to the insured's fall down the stairs, which resulted in her death. The court concluded the Unum Life did not abuse its discretion in denying benefits under the policy's intoxication exclusion. View "Williams v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against State Farm and GEICO for liability coverage after she was injured on her husband's boat. In this case, plaintiff was seriously hurt when she was thrown from the boat.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment concluding that the State Farm and GEICO household exclusions bar recovery here. Furthermore, the exclusions do not violate Minnesota law and public policy. The court rejected plaintiff's suggestion that the question of umbrella and boatowner's liability insurance coverage arising from spousal negligence creates a novel question of law that the court should certify to the Minnesota Supreme Court. The court explained that the caselaw plaintiff relies on does not hold that insurance policies must cover household members. Rather, Minnesota consistently enforces household exclusions when the controlling statutes do not prohibit such exclusions, nor do they require homeowner's policies to provide liability coverage for claims made by one resident of a household against another. View "Godfrey v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Continental in an action brought by Millard Gutter, alleging that Continental breached insurance policies issued to third parties. The court concluded that Millard Gutter lacked authority to determine the scope of the loss or damage sustained by Midwest Screw or Dr. Schroeder. In this case, the authorization terms are clear and no reasonable person would construe them to assign Midwest Screw's and Dr. Schroeder's claims to Millard Gutter or to otherwise grant Millard Gutter the right to determine the scope of damages or loss. Rather, the plain language of the authorizations permits Millard Gutter only to seek payment from defendants and to negotiate the terms of those payments with defendants. View "Millard Gutter Co. v. Continental Casualty Co." on Justia Law

CNI owed IPFS the unearned premium from an insurance policy that was cancelled prematurely, but the parties disputed the value of the unearned premium. The district court granted partial summary judgment to IPFS but denied IPFS's request for prejudgment interest. IPFS filed a motion to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), requesting prejudgment interest, which the district court granted. CNI appeals.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting IPFS's Rule 59(e) motion. The court explained that the fact that IPFS did not request prejudgment interest in its initial summary judgment briefing does not mean that the district court was prohibited from considering the request in a post-judgment Rule 59(e) motion. The court also concluded that the district court did not miscalculate the amount of prejudgment interest owed by CNI under Nebraska law. In this case, because the district court could readily determine the amount based on the premium finance agreement and no reasonable controversy existed as to the amount, the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the entire claim was liquidated and subject to prejudgment interest. View "Continental Indemnity Co. v. IPFS of New York, LLC" on Justia Law

Oral Surgeons submitted a claim to Cincinnati for losses it suffered as a result of the suspension of non-emergency procedures due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Oral Surgeons maintains that the COVID-19 pandemic and the related government-imposed restrictions on performing non-emergency dental procedures constituted a "direct 'loss' to property" because Oral Surgeons was unable to fully use its offices.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of Cincinnati's motion to dismiss, concluding that the policy unambiguously requires direct physical loss or physical damage to trigger business interruption and extra expense coverage, which Oral Surgeons did not allege. Therefore, the policy clearly does not provide coverage for Oral Surgeons' partial loss of use of its offices, absent a showing of direct physical loss or physical damage. View "Oral Surgeons, P.C. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action against Auto-Owners after their family members were killed in an auto accident, alleging that they were entitled to more under Auto-Owners' Policy. After both sides filed motions for summary judgment, the district district court granted in part and denied in part each motion and disposed of all claims.The Eighth Circuit agreed with Auto-Owners that the district court erroneously interpreted the policy to provide $3 million in total coverage. The court explained that there is no reasonable interpretation of the policy that avoids surplusage. In this case, because sections 4.a and 4.b of the policy specify at "most" how much an insured may recover, those sections are properly read as limitations to coverage, not promises to provide a certain amount of coverage. Because there is only one reasonable interpretation of the policy and because 4.a and 4.b do not conflict with each other, the policy is not ambiguous. Accordingly, the court reversed, vacated, and remanded. View "Brazil v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co." on Justia Law