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

Plaintiffs filed suit seeking damages from American Family for their individual insurance claims, and the district court later granted American Family's motion to dismiss. The district court denied plaintiffs' motion to amend. Plaintiffs' motion to amend sought to change their theory of the case because the class action petition had challenged the contents of all American Family insurance policies in a declaratory judgment pleading while the proposed second amended petition claimed that American Family breached the contents of the insurance contract. Furthermore, the class action petition sought a class wide injunction, not individual damages, while the proposed second amended petition sought individual damages instead of a class wide injunction. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion because plaintiffs sought to change their theory of liability after their class action petition had been dismissed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Adams v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Busch filed suit against National Union after National Union denied coverage for Busch's expenditures to remediate mold in the condominium complex that it managed. The court concluded that the district court correctly concluded that Busch's payments for mold remediation are not covered under its policy with National Union because its legal obligation to remediate the mold did not spring from "liability imposed by law." The court also concluded that the district court correctly concluded that Busch's maintenance or consent agreements do not trigger coverage under the 1994 policy because those agreements do not constitute a legal obligation to pay as damages for liability assumed by Busch under contract. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Busch Properties, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins." on Justia Law

National Union was ordered to pay part of the costs Continental incurred to defend Valspar against several lawsuits. Valspar intervened and now appeals. The court concluded that National Union had a duty to defend Valspar and therefore has an equitable obligation to contribute to paying the costs of the defense. Neither Valspar’s agreement to pay National Union’s costs, Continental’s agreement not to recover defense costs from Valspar, nor Continental’s alleged failure to pay a small fraction of the costs defeats Continental’s right to contribution from National Union. These are distinct obligations. And National Union’s share of the defense costs paid by the insurers is unaffected by amounts paid by Valspar. Accordingly, the court affirmed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Continental Casualty Co. v. The Valspar Corp." on Justia Law

After the parties' dispute over insurance policy liability coverage, plaintiffs and Cincinnati submitted a joint complaint for declaratory judgment. The court concluded that the district court did not err in finding that the Business Owners Package (BOP) and Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies issued by Cincinnati prohibited stacking where both policies cover the same injury, such that the maximum coverage for the injury is $1,000,000. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Cincinnati. View "Gohagan v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Wolfe filed suit against Universal for a declaration of its rights under an insurance policy, as well as for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay. Universal counterclaimed for declaratory judgment in its favor. The district court granted Universal's motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that, under the plain language of the policy, the umbrella coverage is not available for the injuries alleged in the underlying complaint. Therefore, Universal is entitled to judgment as a matter of law that it is not under a duty to defend Wolfe from the underlying suit except to the extent such a duty may be provided for in the customer complaint defense provision, and consequently that Universal is not under a duty to indemnify Wolfe should there be an award of damages in the underlying suit. Because Wolfe's claims for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay rest on the success of its declaratory judgment action, the court need not address them, nor Universal's remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Wolfe Auto. Grp. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Great West filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that National is contractually obligated to defend and indemnify an owner-operator of a semi-tractor in a pending state court suit. The court concluded that the owner-operator was an "insured" under the National policy; neither two exclusions in the National policy applied; and the exclusion in the Great West policy's applied. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Great West, because the underlying negligence claim against the owner-operator was covered under National's policy and excluded under Great West's policy. View "Great West Cas. Co. v. National Cas. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment allowing Northwestern to rescind a disability insurance policy. The court concluded that Northwestern’s evidence is insufficient to show that it is entitled to summary judgment because the evidence does not address the specific insurance policy at issue in this case. The court concluded that the issue is whether, after the policy went into effect, the failure to cancel the policy increased the risk at the time of the loss, i.e., when plaintiff became disabled and made a claim for benefits. Even if a general aversion to over-insurance is sufficient to prove that plaintiff's breach of his promise to cancel the Great-West policy increased the risk to Northwestern, it does not address whether his breach increased the risk at the time of loss. As to Northwestern's alternative argument, the court concluded that there appears to remain a factual dispute concerning whether plaintiff knew or should have known that the representation at issue was false or was made with intent to deceive. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Weiher" on Justia Law

In 2006, fire destroyed Calvin’s home. His insurer paid the claim, but indicated that it would not reinsure him. Calvin rebuilt on the same land and applied for a policy through the Mackey Agency. Calvin answered questions posed to him by Eleen Mackey, an employee, who entered the information into a computer. Asked if he had a fire loss within the previous three years, Calvin stated that he had a fire at the same location. Mackey printed the application. Calvin signed without reading it. The “No” box next to the question about prior fire loss was marked, but the blank within the question was not filled in. The space for Calvin's initials is also blank. Metropolitan issued a homeowner’s policy in 2007. Calvin paid the premiums regularly. In 2011, Calvin’s rebuilt home was destroyed by fire while the family was on vacation. Metropolitan’s investigation was inconclusive; no cause could be determined. Metropolitan denied Calvin’s claim and sought a declaratory judgment to void the policy, based on material misrepresentations in the application and the claims process, claiming that Calvin caused the fire to be set. Calvin counterclaimed breach of contract, slander, outrage, and bad faith. The district court determined that Calvin misrepresented his prior loss and that there was no evidence that Metropolitan acted in a dishonest, malicious, or oppressive manner. The Eighth Circuit reversed as to misrepresentation in the application and breach of contract, but affirmed with respect to bad faith and on Metropolitan’s defense of arson claim. Metropolitan can seek rescission of the contract. View "Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Calvin" on Justia Law

The Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor (DOL), and Treasury appealed a preliminary injunction that enjoins the government from enforcing the contraceptive mandate provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), 42 U.S.C. 300gg-13(a)(4), and its implementing regulations against nonprofit religious organizations that offer healthcare coverage to their employees. The district court’s order also enjoined the government from enforcing the challenged provisions against “any insurance provider (including insurance issuers and third-party administrators) offering health insurance to” the organizations. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, stating that by coercing the organizations to participate in the contraceptive mandate and accommodation process under threat ofsevere monetary penalty, the government has substantially burdened their exercise of religion. Even assuming that the government’s interests in safeguarding public health and ensuring equal access to health care for women are compelling,the contraceptive mandate and accommodation process likely are not the least restrictive means of furthering those interests. View "Dordt College v. Burwell" on Justia Law

In 2009, Liu, a physician in a residency program, elected basic life insurance coverage from LINA through his employer’s ERISA plan and elected supplemental coverage in an amount four times his salary. Asked whether, within the last five years he had been diagnosed with “Cancer, Tumor, Leukemia, Hodgkin’s Disease, Polyps or Mole,” he answered “no.” One month after submitting his application, Liu received a cancer diagnosis. On March 1, 2010, the insurance became effective. On April 23, 2010, Liu died. LINA paid the basic benefit of $46,858.49, but reviewed Liu’s medical records, which revealed that Liu had been experiencing symptoms without a diagnosis before submitting his November 12 application. LINA then issued a denial, stating: While the form was completed accurately at the time ... a diagnosis of cancer prior to the coverage approval date was not disclosed … [the] Form states ... any changes in your health prior to the insurance effective date must be reported. His wife responded that Liu was told he would not have to provide evidence of good health, but did not identify the person who made the alleged representation. The court rejected the wife’s suit on summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Liu breached an application requirement by failing to notify LINA of a cancer diagnosis he received before a policy issued. View "Huang v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am." on Justia Law