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

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's denial of their motion to remand their suit against Chicago Title to state court. The court held that Chicago Title had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million and affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to amend. Finally, the court declined to afford plaintiffs with the specific relief sought where plaintiffs have not moved under Rule 60(a) for the district court to correct the judgment or for the court to grant leave for the district court to correct the clerical error at issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hartis, et al v. Chicago Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant Goding was a beneficiary of an Employee Retirement Insurance Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., Plan administered by Drury. Goding sustained injuries in a slip and fall accident and received benefits from the Drury-administered Plan, as well as compensation through the settlement of a civil suit related to those injuries. Pursuant to a subrogation provision in the ERISA Plan, Drury attempted to secure reimbursement from Goding for the benefits it paid but was unable to do so after Goding declared bankruptcy. Drury then attempted to obtain that reimbursement from the firm that represented Goding. The court affirmed the district court's finding that Drury could not obtain such reimbursement because the firm had not agreed to the Plan's subrogation provision and consequently was not contractually bound by it; Drury could not maintain a suit against the firm in equity and could not bring a state cause of action for conversion against the firm; and the firm should be awarded attorneys' fees for successful defense of a subsequent motion. View "Treasurer, Trustees of Drury Ind. v. Goding, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sought coverage from their insurer for damage sustained to their home. After the insurer denied their claim, plaintiffs sued for declaratory relief. The district court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs appealed. The court affirmed the judgment and concluded that the policy exclusion for "any loss caused by" faulty construction was applicable and rejected plaintiffs' contention that the damage caused by the intrusion of water into their home was "an ensuing covered loss" for which they were owed coverage. View "Friedberg, et al. v. Chubb & Son, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

In this uninsured motorist case, plaintiff appealed the district court's ruling that the uninsured motorist (UIM) provisions in his insurance policies with defendant could not be stacked beyond the statutory minimum per insurance policy. Plaintiff also argued that the district court erred in applying a settlement that arose from the same accident at issue in this case as a credit against what he could recover from defendant. Defendant cross-appealed, arguing that plaintiff's counsel's misconduct before the jury warranted a new trial. In addition, defendant argued that plaintiffs failed to make a submissible negligence case to the jury. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court as to all issues save its determination that UIM provisions could not be stacked beyond the statutory minimum. As to that issue, the court reversed and remanded. View "Burroughs, et al. v. Mackie Moving Systems Corp., et al." on Justia Law

In a diversity action involving an insurance dispute, Union Electric appealed the district court's grant of EIM's motion to dismiss. Union Electric is a Missouri Utility and EIM is a mutual insurance company incorporated in Barbados and with a principal place of business in Florida. At issue was an insurance contract, which specified that New York law applied, which was drafted by the member insureds, in contrast to the insurer-drafted contracts commonly found in insurance disputes. While the district court correctly determined that M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. provided the standard for evaluating a motion to dismiss based on a contractual forum selection clause, the court reversed and remanded for the district court to consider in the first instance whether Missouri's public policy against the enforcement of mandatory arbitration provisions invalidated the forum selection clause. View "Union Electric Co. v. Energy Ins. Mutual" on Justia Law

Eloise Walker, mother of the decedent, appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Pamela Wright-Dallas, the named beneficiary under the decedent's benefits plans. Walker argued that the district court erred because it made a ruling without first reviewing the entire administrative record, and in the alternative, the district court erred by applying the wrong standard of review. The court found no plain error and rejected Walker's claim that the district considered an inadequate record; the district court properly applied the abuse-of-discretion standard; and a heightened standard of review was not warranted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Trustees of the Local No. 1, et al. v. Walker" on Justia Law

Perks applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. An ALJ denied Perks's application. On appeal to the appeals council, Perks submitted additional evidence. The appeals council noted the receipt of the additional evidence but denied further review of Perks's claim. The district court affirmed. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding that Perks was not disabled; and (2) the additional evidence submitted to the appeals council did not undermine the ALJ's determination, as the ALJ would not have reached a different result with the additional evidence and the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. View "Perks v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Joseph Terry, who received long-term disability benefits, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Terry later sued the bankruptcy trustee, seeking a declaration that his disability insurance provider, Standard Insurance Company, should not have reduced his benefits by the amount of certain "voidable" payments. The bankruptcy court ruled that Standard was precluded from recouping the payments. The bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) reversed, holding that recoupment was subject to a a "balancing of the equities." On remand, the bankruptcy court found that the equities prevented Standard from recouping the payments. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the BAP (1) erred by introducing a balancing of the equities test into the doctrine of recoupment and by invoking these equitable principles to deny Standard a right of recoupment; and (2) abused its discretion in how it weighed the equities. View "Terry v. Standard Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Marnita Goddard was injured while riding on a trolley operated by the city of Deadwood, South Dakota. Invoking diversity jurisdiction, Goddard sued the city for negligence and the South Dakota Public Assurance Alliance (SDPAA) for uninsured motorist coverage. After Goddard settled with the city, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of SDPAA, concluding that Goddard was not covered under the uninsured motorist provision in the city's agreement with SDPAA. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Goddard had not shown she was entitled to coverage under the uninsured motorist provision of the SDPAA agreement. View "Goddard v. S.D. Pub. Assurance Alliance" on Justia Law

Kevin Byes applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income on July 30, 2007, claiming disability since November 1, 2005. The Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Commissioner) denied benefits. An administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld the Commissioner's decision, concluding that Byes was not disabled from November 1, 2005 through the date of the decision. The district court agreed with the ALJ's decision. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding of no severe mental impairment; and (2) the district court correctly concluded that the ALJ had applied the incorrect grid rule in order to determine Byes was not disabled but that the error was harmless. View "Byes v. Astrue" on Justia Law