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

Harleysville issued Diamondhead a commercial insurance policy where, although the parties intended for the policy to exclude coverage for law enforcement, Harleysville inadvertently omitted that exclusion from the policy itself. Harleysville subsequently filed suit against Diamondhead and two residents after a Diamondhead police officer got into an altercation with the residents. Harleysville sought a reformation of the insurance contract and a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the officer. The court concluded that the district court did not err in reforming the policy to reflect the parties' intent and the doctrine of laches was inapplicable in this instance where the officer pointed to no fact that would make it unjust for Harleysville to seek relief in this circumstance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Harleysville Worchester Ins. Co. v. Ensminger" on Justia Law

After CIC denied the Archdiocese's demand for secondary excess carrier coverage, CIC filed suit seeking a declaration that its policy did not provide coverage for the underlying wrongful death litigation. On appeal, the Archdiocese challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of CIC. The court concluded, under Gibson v. Brewer, that the Archdiocese did not affirmatively establish that it was legally liable for the conduct alleged in the wrongful death claim and the court concluded that the Archdiocese was not entitled to indemnity coverage under CIC's policy. The court rejected the Archdiocese's remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Chicago Ins. Co. v. Archdiocese of St. Louis, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Safeco seeking to stack the underinsured motorist coverage from various policies she and her husband had taken out with Safeco for their five vehicles. On appeal, plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Safeco. The court rejected Safeco's argument that the Missouri Supreme Court in Ritchie v. Allied Property & Casualty Insurance Co. limited its holding to situations where the insured was occupying a non-owned vehicle at the time the injury was suffered and was not applicable to plaintiff because she was a pedestrian at the time of the accident. The court concluded that whether the policy in Ritchie required occupancy of a non-owned vehicle was not specifically decided by the Missouri Supreme Court. From the Missouri Supreme Court's holding in Ritchie, the court believed it would reject the Missouri Court of Appeals decision in Kennedy v. Safeco Insurance Co. of Illinois. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to grant plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and to conduct further proceedings. View "Jordan, et al. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of IL" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment respecting the timeliness of his lawsuit against Nationwide seeking coverage under plaintiff's employer's underinsured motorist (UIM) policy with Nationwide. In Minnesota, the plain language of an unambiguous insurance policy controls its legal effect, whereas an ambiguous policy term is construed strictly against the insurer. In this instance, the policy plainly required plaintiff to have filed his action in a court of competent jurisdiction within two years of the underlying accident, a condition which was not satisfied here. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Larson v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against their insurer, American Bankers, after American Bankers denied plaintiffs' claim to recover for property damage under their Standard Flood Insurance Policy. Although plaintiffs filed a proof of loss for their undisputed claims, including the damage to their residence, they never filed a proof of loss for their disputed debris removal claim. The court concluded that plaintiffs' failure to file a proof of loss for their debris removal costs was a complete bar to recovery under the policy. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of American Bankers. View "Dickson, et al. v. American Bankers Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against CRST in state court alleging that CRST negligently failed to maintain his workers' compensation insurance coverage. CRST removed the case to federal court and the district court granted summary judgment to CRST. The court affirmed the district court's holding that plaintiff's action was barred by the applicable Missouri statute of limitations. View "Brown v. CRST Malone" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's denial of her motion for judgment on the record, affirming Liberty's termination of long-term disability benefits and dismissal of the complaint with prejudice. The policy provided that an employee was not disabled if the employee was capable of performing any occupation for which he or she was reasonably fitted. The court concluded that Liberty did not abuse its discretion in determining that plaintiff was reasonably fitted to perform the occupation of ambulance/emergency service dispatcher. Therefore, the record reflected that Liberty's decision to terminate benefits was supported by substantial evidence and thus did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Gerhardt v. Liberty Life Assurance Co., et al." on Justia Law

In an insurance coverage dispute between Macheca and Philadelphia, Macheca contended on appeal for a third time that damages were erroneously reduced by amounts it recovered from a separate insurance carrier, and that the district court erred in denying its request for prejudgment interest. The court affirmed the district court's judgment with respect to all of Macheca's challenges on the issue of the Travelers payment because Macheca was barred from raising the issue in this appeal under the law-of-the-case doctrine; affirmed the district court's denial of prejudgment interest on the claims for lost business income and necessary expenses; and reversed the denial of prejudgment interest on the claim for property damage where the award was reasonably ascertainable. View "Macheca Transport Co., et al. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Farmers and American, insurance companies, for breach of contract and various state law violations, seeking recovery for additional loss. The court concluded that plaintiffs' claims for specific performance, unjust enrichment, and bad faith were expressly preempted by federal law; the court affirmed the district court's grant of Farmers' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' extracontractual claims because they were preempted under federal law; and the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Farmers on the ground that plaintiffs failed to file a supplemental proof of loss, a strictly construed requirement, and thus did not satisfy the prerequisites for suing on their additional claims, rejecting plaintiffs' estoppel, duress, repudiation, and due process arguments. Further, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for American, concluding that the American policy was supplemental and plaintiffs could not recover from American for flood damage because they had not exhausted their primary policy with Farmers. View "Gunter, et al. v. Farmers Ins. Co., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Darwin alleging that the insurance company breached its duty to defend and its implied duties of good faith and fair dealing under the policy at issue. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Darwin. The court concluded that Darwin owed no duty to defend plaintiffs because all of the claims at issue fell within the Customer Funds Exclusion; the district court's interpretation of the Customer Funds Exclusion did not violate the illusory coverage doctrine; and the reasonable expectations doctrine did not apply in this case. The court also concluded that the innocent insured doctrine did not obligate Darwin to defend plaintiffs and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim for breach of the implied contractual duties of good faith and fair dealing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Bethel, II, et al. v. Darwin Select Ins. Co." on Justia Law