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

PETCO sought a declaration that ICNA had to defend and indemnify PETCO in an underlying litigation with Medtronic. Medtronic sued PETCO after an aquarium heater it had purchased from PETCO malfunctioned and started a fire at a Medtronic plant. The district court granted ICNA's motion for summary judgment and PETCO appealed. At issue was whether the aquarium heater satisfied a condition precedent to coverage under the policy. The court affirmed the district court's judgment on the ground that PETCO failed to identify any mandatory or voluntary safety standard with which the heater complied. View "PETCO Animal Supplies Stores, et al. v. Ins. Co. of North America" on Justia Law

Lexington sought a declaration that it owed Integrity neither coverage nor defenses under an errors and omissions (E&O) insurance policy. Fidelity intervened and subsequently moved for a stay. The court concluded that the district court enjoyed discretion when applying Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Detco Indus., Inc. and it did not abuse its discretion in denying Fidelity's motion for a stay. The court also concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment on Fidelity's indemnification claims where the two exclusions in the E&O policy, the prior-knowledge exclusion and the lien-waiver exclusion, independently and alternately precluded coverage for the claims as articulated by Fidelity on appeal. The court did not consider the propriety of the district court's election to address third-party beneficiary status nor its substantive determination as to that issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Lexington Ins. Co. v. Fidelity Nat'l Fin." on Justia Law

In an insurance coverage dispute with a policyholder, Cincinnati appealed the district court's adverse summary judgment rulings. The policyholder sought a claim of total loss for a vertical lathe that it purchased from a manufacturer in Taiwan and that was destroyed in Los Angeles. Cincinnati denied coverage, claiming that the coverage extension for newly acquired property did not apply. The court concluded that the extension of coverage to "any location you acquire" was ambiguous and, under Iowa law, the court construed that ambiguity in the policyholder's favor. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in awarding prejudgment interest under Iowa law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Amera-Seiki Corp. v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against Auto-Owners, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. On appeal, Auto-Owners challenged the district court's certification of a class for those policy owners whose policies were issued in North Dakota. The court reversed, concluding that the certified class did not meet the predominance requirement of Rule 23 where the reasonableness of any claim payment may have to be individually analyzed and, therefore, the district court abused its discretion in certifying the class. View "Halvorson, et al. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., et al." on Justia Law

Indigo and one of its employees filed suit against Advanced and Lile, alleging breach of contract, negligence, conspiracy, and violations of federal law on the theory that Advanced and Lile had intentionally delayed payments on valid insurance claims. Indigo argued on appeal that, despite receiving full reimbursement from the receiver, it suffered an injury because a monthly retention amount it had paid to Advanced was neither credited towards the employee's medical costs nor repaid by Indigo. The court agreed with the district court that Indigo failed to establish standing because Indigo failed to show how any injury had arisen, or might arise in the future, from the alleged conduct. View "Indigo LR LLC, et al. v. Advanced Ins. Brokerage, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit seeking interest on benefits she received under an Accidental Death and Dismemberment (ADD) insurance policy issued by Hartford. The parties disagreed on whether Tennessee law or Missouri law applied. Plaintiff did not dispute Hartford's argument that under Missouri law and the policy language, Hartford paid the benefit to her when it was payable. Accordingly, the court concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to interest under Missouri law. Assuming Tennessee law applied, the court relied on Performance Sys., Inc. v. First Am. Nat'l Bank, to conclude that the Tennessee Supreme Court would likely construe "due" in Tenn. Code Ann. 7-14-109(b) to mean the time of payment designated in the policy, not the date of loss. In this instance, Hartford paid the benefit to plaintiff within the time of payment designated in the policy and, therefore, plaintiff was not entitled to interest under subsection (b). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Williamson v. Hartford Life & Accident, etc." on Justia Law

Doe Run commenced a declaratory action seeking to enforce Lexington's contractual duty to defend Doe Run per its Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies in two underlying lawsuits (the Briley Lawsuit and the McSpadden Lawsuit). These underlying lawsuits sought damages arising out of Doe Run's operation of a five-hundred-acre waste pile (Leadwood Pile). The court concluded that the pollution exclusions in the CGL policies precluded a duty to defend Doe Run in the Briley Lawsuit. The court concluded, however, that the McSpadden Lawsuit included allegations and claims that were not unambiguously barred from coverage by the pollution exclusions in the policies. The McSpadden Lawsuit alleged that the distribution of toxic materials harmed plaintiffs, without specifying how that harm occurred. The McSpadden complaint also alleged that Doe Run caused bodily injury or property damage when it left the Leadwood Pile open and available for use by the public without posting warning signs. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Doe Run Resources Corp. v. Lexington Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Doe Run commenced a declaratory judgment action seeking to enforce Lexington's contractual duty to defend Doe Run per its Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies in an underlying lawsuit. The underlying lawsuit alleged environmental property damage resulting from Doe Run's mine and mill operations. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that Lexington had no duty to defend because the policies' absolute pollution exclusions unambiguously barred coverage of all claims asserted in the underlying lawsuit. View "Doe Run Resources Corp. v. Lexington Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Grinnell on their claim for equitable garnishment of a personal liability insurance policy issued to the sellers of the home. Plaintiffs claimed that the insureds' misrepresentations regarding the condition of the home qualified as a covered occurrence under the policy. The court concluded, however, that the policy provided coverage only for property damage caused by the occurrence. In this instance, there was no property damage caused by the asserted occurrence, and therefore, there was no applicable coverage. Plaintiffs' alternative argument failed where, even if plaintiffs were correct that the structural damage was caused by a covered occurrence, the damage would be excluded from coverage by the policy. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Payne, et al. v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a claim with its insurer, Axis, after electrical wiring was stolen from its lumberyard. Axis refused to pay the full claim, citing a coinsurance provision in the policy. Plaintiff brought this action seeking to recover under the policy. The court concluded that the proper interpretation of the coinsurance provision depended on whether the insured had filed an actual cash value claim or a replacement cost claim. Here, plaintiff filed a claim with Axis for the actual value of its stolen wire. In order to calculate whether plaintiff was subject to a coinsurance policy on that claim, then, the term "value" in the coinsurance provision should be read as the actual cash value of plaintiff's saw and planing mills. Therefore, plaintiff was not subject to a coinsurance penalty on its claim for the actual value of the stolen wire; plaintiff was entitled to receive its claim of $725,000 less the $100,000 interim payment made by Axis and two undisputed $25,000 deductibles; and plaintiff was entitled to a judgment in the amount of $575,000. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Buddy Bean Lumber Co. v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co." on Justia Law