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

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

Plaintiffs are survivors of the victims who were murdered inside an apartment building owned by the landlords. A state court found that the landlords breached their landlord-tenant duty to provide security to the victims and awarded plaintiffs $4 million in total damages. Plaintiffs then filed an equitable garnishment action to recover insurance proceeds from one of the landlord's insurers to satisfy a portion of the wrongful death judgments. The district court ruled that plaintiffs were entitled to collect $1 million in insurance proceeds from the insurer. The court reversed and remanded, holding that the insurance policy unambiguously precluded coverage of the wrongful death damages where the business property exclusion unambiguously precluded coverage of the wrongful death judgments plaintiffs obtained against the landlords. View "Eichholz, et al. v. Secura Supreme Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was injured operating his employer's truck and came to a settlement with the tortfeasors. Then plaintiff and his wife filed suit against Continental for underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage in his employer's policy. The district court granted Continental's motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that plaintiffs could not stack their claims. The court concluded that the district court erred in finding a $2 million UIM limit where there was no ambiguity in the policy's selection form because the declarations page and UIM coverage endorsement specify a $500,000 UIM limit and the selection form did not contradict this limit. The court concluded that plaintiffs' failure to timely file their cross petition did not preclude review of the stacking claim. However, the court concluded that plaintiffs' arguments lacked merit and affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiffs' stacking claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Munroe, et al. v. Continental Western Ins." on Justia Law

In a prior appeal, the court held that Travelers was entitled to receive $10 million from a primary insurer who had obtained a larger judgment through subrogation litigation against a third party. In this instance, the court concluded that the district court erred in holding that the court had decided the attorneys' fee issue in its prior opinion. However, the error was harmless because the court held that the equitable common-fund doctrine applied. The court also held that it was necessary to amend the amount of the common-fund offset; the district court erred in holding that the court's prior opinion precluded prejudgment and postjudgment interest; such error was not harmless and, therefore, the court reversed; the award to Travelers must be increased to reflect prejudgment and postjudgment interest; and the court directed the district court to enter judgment as detailed. View "Travelers Property Casualty Ins. v. National Union Ins." on Justia Law

This case concerned the struggle for control of a family business, the Pittman Nursery Corporation (PNC). The district court ruled that Hortica, insurer for PNC, had a duty to defend three of the five lawsuits at issue. Pursuant to Ark. Code. Ann. 23-79-209(a), the court reversed the district court's denial of fees and remanded for a hearing to determine the proper amount of fees Hortica must pay to PNC for its defense in the declaratory judgment suit. The court affirmed the district court's grant of Hortica's post-verdict judgment as a matter of law (JAML) motion, grant of pre-verdict JAML on PNC's breach of fiduciary duty and punitive claims, and exclusion of certain evidence. View "Hortica-Florists' Mutual Ins. v. Pittman Nursery Corp., et al." on Justia Law

The EPA filed suit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. against Land O'Lakes, alleging that Land O'Lakes was responsible for cleanup costs at a contaminated refinery site. Land O'Lakes subsequently filed suit against its insurers, Wausau and Travelers, seeking payment of defense costs and indemnification under commercial general liability (CGL) policies that the insurers issued in connection with the CERCLA suit. The court concluded that Land O'Lakes's 2009 duty-to-defend claims were barred by the Minnesota statute of limitations where the 2001 Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) letter was a "suit" for arguably-covered damages as contemplated under the pertinent CGL policies. The court also concluded that Land O'Lakes's costs to remediate the refinery site fell within the owned-property exclusion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Land O'Lakes, Inc. v. Employers Ins. Co., et al." on Justia Law