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

After plaintiff was denied long-term disability benefits by Standard, he sought review of Standard's determination under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Standard and held that there was substantial evidence supporting Standard's denial of benefits. The court also held that a conflict of interest alone was not determinative where there existed substantial evidence on the record supporting the denial of benefits.

Plaintiff sued Hartford seeking coverage under his life insurance policy for accidental dismemberment benefits after he suffered serious injuries to his eyes when a can of oven cleaner exploded in his face. The district court dismissed plaintiff's suit, concluding it was untimely because it was brought three years after the loss, outside the policy's time limitations for bringing legal actions against Hartford. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that he brought suit within Arkansas's five-year statute of limitations for breach of contract actions, Ark. Code Ann. 23-79-202(b). The court agreed with plaintiff and held that prior case law was inconsistent with Hartford's contention that the "period prescribed by law" referred to in section 23-79-202 meant something other than the full five-year period set forth in Ark. Code Ann. 16-56-111. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.

This appeal arose from an insurance coverage dispute where the City sought coverage from Genesis for 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims in the nature of malicious prosecution. Genesis filed suit against the City, seeking a declaratory judgment that its policies provided no coverage for the underlying actions. The district court granted summary judgment to Genesis and the City appealed, arguing that the district court erred in ruling as a matter of law that the policies did not provide the City insurance coverage for the claims. Because Genesis did not have an insurance contract with the City in 1977, when the underlying charges were filed, it did not have a duty to defendant and indemnify the city in the suits. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Plaintiff sued Jessica J. Wright and her insurers for equitable garnishment to collect a state court judgment. Wright had hacked into plaintiff's voicemail and Facebook services, sending disparaging letters and emails about him, and making anonymous phone calls and texts to harass or defame him, among other things. The district court granted summary judgment to the insurers and plaintiff appealed. The court concluded that the Umbrella Policy covered personal injury arising from defamation or privacy violations and excluded coverage for personal injury arising from mental abuse. Therefore, the acts in this case - whether they were the results of Wright's negligence - were mental abuse and not covered by the insurance policy.

Plaintiffs sued defendants, seeking indemnification and reformation of a workers' compensation insurance policy. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. The court concluded that Cascades' gratuitous assignment to Newton was valid under Minnesota law. Newton, as Cascades' assignee, was entitled to enforce both the right to indemnification and the right to reformation. He was a real party in interest, destroying diversity jurisdiction. Therefore, the court held that because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the court vacated and remanded.

Lowell Burris and his wife commenced a product liability action against Menard, Versa, and Versa's affiliate in Minnesota state court. After Menard removed the action to federal court, which had diversity jurisdiction, Gulf commenced this action seeking a judgment declaring "that the policy issued by Gulf to [the named insureds] does not afford coverage to them or Menard, Inc. for any claim made by [Burris] under the terms of the Gulf Policy." The district court granted Gulf's motion for a summary declaratory judgment on the ground that Versa' dissolution after expiration of the policy meant that the insured "cannot meet its obligations under the SIR" (Self-Insured Retention endorsement), a material breach that terminated Gulf's obligations under the policy. Burris appealed. The court concluded that summary judgment for Gulf was factually unwarranted and the declaratory judgment action was dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff sued her employer and its workers' compensation insurer for intentional obstruction of workers' compensation in violation of Minnesota statute 176.82. The employer and insurer moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. The court held that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the employer intentionally obstructed her receipt of workers' compensation benefits through her manager's fabrications and its 17-month delay in payment. The court also held that genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the insurer intentionally obstructed her receipt of workers' compensation benefits by concealing the manager's first statement about the purpose of the meeting at issue, filing a factually-inaccurate claim denial, and continuing to deny the claim through trial. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings.

Debtor appealed an order of the bankruptcy court sustaining the objection of the Chapter 7 trustee to her claimed exemption of her interest in an annuity. The court concluded that res judicata applied to the debtor's claim of an exemption; and even if res judicata did not apply the bankruptcy court properly disallowed the debtor's claimed exemption. The court also affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision on the bases that: (1) it properly determined that the record did not show that the Company was "authorized to do business" as a "stipulated premium" or "assessment plan" insurance company, as required for Mo. Rev. Stat. 377.330 and 377.090 to apply to the annuity; and (2) the annuity was not insurance, as required for any of the three statutes at issue.

This declaratory judgment action was brought by Secura, an insurer for Horizon, a subcontractor on a troubled construction project. Horizon's two other insurers, State Auto and Federated later joined. Their dispute with Weitz arose out of a construction project in which Weitz was the general contractor for Metropolitan. After Weitz and Metropolitan brought breach of contract claims against each other, both filed third party complaints against Horizon for defective plumbing. Horizon's insurers defended and settled all claims against it and reimbursed Weitz for its defense of claims against Horizon. Weitz then contended that since it was an "additional insured" on Horizon's policies, the insurers should pay for attorney fees and costs it incurred in defending against Metropolitan's entire counterclaim. The insurers filed this action seeking a final judgment that they not be required to pay the attorney fees and costs. Applying Missouri law, the court rejected Weitz's argument that Metropolitan's counterclaim asserted potentially covered losses under the policies. Therefore, the court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurers because Metropolitan's counterclaim did not state an "occurrence" giving rise to a possibility of coverage under the policies.

This case involved a dispute between an excess and primary insurer, both of whom insured a trucking company whose tractor trailer was involved in a fatal accident. Parties injured in the accident sued the trucking company and obtained a jury verdict which exposed the excess carrier to a $17 million dollar liability. The excess carrier sued the primary carrier, alleging bad faith in failing to settle the underlying claim within the policy limits. The court held that the district court did not err in applying Missouri law because the excess insurer failed to identify Washington as a state "with a relationship to, or an interest in the issues that approaches Missouri's[.]" The court also held that the excess insurer's bad faith claim failed because its insured never made a demand of the primary insurer to settle the underlying litigation within the policy limits. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the primary insurer.