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

Plaintiffs filed suit against Midwest, alleging that an insurance agent carelessly and negligently failed to designate plaintiffs as owners of the insurance policy at issue. The district court concluded that the complaint failed to state a viable claim and dismissed the case. The court concluded that, under the policy, control over the policy during the lifetime of the insured - including the power to name a new owner - belonged solely to the insured in this case. Therefore, Midwest cannot be liable for negligence for failing to do something it had no power to do. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Carlson v. Midwest Prof'l Planners" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit seeking interest and attorney's fees after General American notified plaintiff that the treasury warrant in the amount of his annuity transfer had never cleared. General American reversed the transaction. The court found that, under the terms of plaintiff's annuity, General American promised to make periodic payments to plaintiff at agreed upon dates; plaintiff does not allege that General American failed to make payments or otherwise failed to fulfill an obligation under the terms of the annuity; nor does this action arise from a declaratory judgment action or an effort by General American to cancel or lapse the policy. Accordingly, the court concluded that plaintiff did not suffer a “loss” covered by Ark. Code Ann. Sections 23-79-208 and 23-79-209, and the district court was correct that neither a 12% penalty nor attorney’s fees are owing by American General under these sections. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in finding plaintiff was not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under section 16-22-308. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney’s fees in this case. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Cooper v. General American Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his insurer, Nationwide, for breach of contract based on Nationwide’s refusal to pay for damages caused by water that leaked from a buried pipe located beneath the garage-floor slab of plaintiff's home. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment because the exclusion in plaintiff's homeowner's policy is unambiguous on its face and the court agreed with the district court's conclusion that the exclusion's language applied to water below the surface of the ground, regardless of whether that water came from a pipe. View "Bull v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins.Co." on Justia Law

After plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident, the Plan paid medical benefits on plaintiff's behalf. Plaintiff also received a payment from a different carrier that insured the party who was allegedly responsible for plaintiff’s injury. The Blue Cross carriers contend that under the terms of plaintiff's benefit plan, she must use any monies obtained from the alleged tortfeasor’s insurer to reimburse the Plan for medical benefits paid by Blue Cross. Blue Cross’s position is that a provision of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act, 5 U.S.C. 8902(m)(1), expressly preempts plaintiff’s state-law defense, and that the Plan governs the question of reimbursement. The court concluded that federal law preempts the Arkansas state-law defense, and that plaintiff must reimburse the Plan. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Bell v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of OK" on Justia Law

In this insurance dispute over the adjusted value of hail-damaged crops in northwest Iowa, Bruhn challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment for Fireman's. The court concluded that there is a factual dispute about whether Fireman's breached its obligations to its insured in this case. Bruhn contends that Fireman's breached the agreement by tendering payment for the loss without first reaching agreement with Bruhn, without entry of a final judgment, and without the filing of any appraisal award. Fireman's contends that the provision merely provides a payment deadline, not a condition precedent to payment issuance. Because there is an issue of fact as to whether Fireman's breached the insurance contract and because the factual issues in the breach claim are relevant to the bad-faith claim, this claim survives summary judgment as well. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bruhn Farms Joint Venture v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an insured under a commercial-property insurance policy issued by Country Mutual, was awarded $76,065.50 by the jury for covered hail and wind damage to her property. However, the jury found that the policy did not cover water damage to the interiors of the property. Plaintiff appealed. The court concluded that the district court applied the law correctly under the federal rules and acted within the scope of its discretion in excluding certain portions from the supplemental expert reports; plaintiff was not prejudiced by the exclusion of this evidence to an extent resulting in fundamental unfairness; and the jury instructions fairly and adequately presented the issues in the case to the jury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for new trial and entry of judgment. View "Amplatz v. Country Mutual Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Bellingham filed a beach of contract claim against BancInsure after BancInsure denied coverage for loss that BancInsure claimed was not caused by employee-caused loss exclusions, exclusions for theft of confidential information,nor exclusions for mechanical breakdown or deterioration of a computer system. The district court granted summary judgment to Bellingham. The court concluded that no Minnesota case precludes application of the concurrent-causation doctrine to financial institution bonds. The court found that Minnesota courts would adhere to the general rule of treating financial institution bonds as insurance polices and interpreting those bonds in accordance with the principles of insurance law. Furthermore, the court rejected BancInsure’s argument that the Bond imposes a higher standard-of-proof than the concurrent-causation doctrine. Bellingham still had to show that its loss was directly caused by the fraudulent transfer, and the application of the concurrent-causation doctrine did not interfere with that requirement. The court also rejected BancInsure’s argument that the parties successfully drafted around the concurrent-causation doctrine in the Bond. As a matter of law, the Bond’s reference to “indirectly” is not a sufficient invocation of the “anti-concurrent causation” provision, and thus the Bond at issue in this matter does not contain such a provision. Finally, the court agreed with the district court's conclusion that the efficient and proximate cause of the loss was the illegal transfer of the money and not the employees' violations of policies and procedures. In this case, the overriding cause of the loss Bellingham suffered remains the criminal activity of a third party. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "State Bank of Bellingham v. BancInsure, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the company for interest she claimed it owed her on a payout it made on a policy. The company counterclaimed, asking for its money back because it had paid plaintiff by mistake and so plaintiff was not entitled to the payout in the first place, let alone interest. The district court granted the company summary judgment on plaintiff's claims and granted her summary judgment on the company's counterclaim. The court rejected plaintiff's argument that fraudulent concealment tolled the limitations period and held that the district court correctly found that plaintiff's claims were untimely. In regard to the cross-appeal, the court concluded that the district court erred in holding that the company's counterclaim failed because it neglected to discover all of the relevant facts, where the company has a perfectly straightforward claim for restitution in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "DeCoursey v. American General Life Ins." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her insurer, Allied, after Allied refused to pay a claim she submitted under her policy's underinsured motorist (UIM) endorsement. In this case, Allied only owed coverage when the tortfeasor met the definition of a UIM by having a policy with a limit of liability that is less than $50,000. The driver who caused the accident that injured plaintiff had a $100,000 limit of liability, the sum for which plaintiff settled her claim. Therefore, under the plain terms of the policy, the other driver did not qualify as underinsured. The court rejected plaintiff's claims to the contrary and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Allied. View "Burger v. Allied Property & Casualty Ins." on Justia Law

After a Bamford employee caused a car accident resulting in third party injuries, Bamford requested that its insurer, Regent, settle the claims within Bamford's policy limits. Regent did not settle the claims, the case proceeded to trial, and a jury returned a verdict in excess of Bamford’s policy limits. Bamford filed suit against Regent, alleging that Regent acted in bad faith in not settling the claims. The jury returned a verdict for Bamford. In this appeal, Regent challenged the district court's denial of its post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial. The court affirmed, holding that Bamford presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Regent acted in bad faith in failing to settle the third party claims within the policy limits. Based on the same record of evidence, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Regent’s motion for a new trial predicated on the sufficiency of the evidence. Finally, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving the challenged jury instructions, which were nearly identical to instructions approved by the Nebraska Supreme Court, and must be read as a whole with all of the instructions. View "Bamford, Inc. v. Regent Ins. Co." on Justia Law