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

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

National filed suit against Universal and its parent company, Ally, for breach of contract and other claims after Universal terminated National's non-exclusive right to represent Universal's vehicle warranty program. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Universal and dismissed National's claims.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the termination provision and the representative-fee provision in the 2003 Universal Rep. Agreement unambiguously ended National's entitlement to post-termination representative fees. The court also rejected National's attempt to prove its entitlement to ongoing post-termination representative fees under the 2003 Universal Rep. Agreement via extrinsic evidence—Universal's continued payment of post-termination representative fees under the 2003 VehicleOne Rep. Agreement. The court further concluded that National's fraudulent concealment and negligent misrepresentation claims fail where the terms of the contracts created non-exclusive, limited grants of authority to National, as an independent contractor, that could be terminated at will by either party with sixty days' notice. Therefore, to the extent the alleged statements contradicted these terms, National could not reasonably rely on them under Nebraska law. Finally, National's claims for unjust enrichment and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing failed because they both depend on its assertion that the district court misinterpreted the effect of termination of the 2003 Universal Rep. Agreement. View "B. Thomas and Co. v. Universal Warranty Corp." on Justia Law

After plaintiff was injured in a car accident, she sought underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits from American Family. American Family paid only half of its $100,000 policy limit because of an offset provision in the policy. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the offset provision did not apply.The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff, concluding that the terms of the original policy—which included the offset provision—govern here. The court explained that, under Missouri law, by continuing to pay her insurance premiums, plaintiff obtained new policy periods, but the terms of her initial policy—including the offset provision—remained the same. The court rejected plaintiff's claim that American Family created ambiguity in the insurance policy by issuing the summary. Accordingly, American Family is entitled to summary judgment. View "Micheel v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Integrity in an action brought by plaintiff for negligent performance of an undertaking. Plaintiff filed suit after he was injured in a cab driven by a drunk driver, alleging that Integrity should have done a better background check on the cab driver.The court concluded that Integrity did not owe any duty to plaintiff under Iowa law. The court explained that, even assuming Integrity could have discovered the cab driver's Minnesota DWI, its review of his records did not put plaintiff in a worse situation because the cab company put the driver behind the wheel. Therefore, plaintiff failed to state a duty as a matter of law under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Sec. 324A. The court also concluded that there was no liability under Sec. 324A(c) of the Restatement because the cab company did not rely on the insurer's background check and conducted its own review of the driver's record. View "Foster v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law