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

Teddy and Melanie Scott filed a lawsuit against Dyno Nobel, Inc., alleging that Teddy suffered serious injuries from exposure to a toxic gas cloud negligently emitted from Dyno’s nitric acid plant in Louisiana, Missouri. The incident occurred on March 20, 2015, when an equipment failure during a startup led to the release of nitrogen oxide gas, which enveloped Teddy while he was working at a nearby plant. Teddy experienced immediate physical symptoms and has since suffered from ongoing health issues, including irritable larynx syndrome, headaches, and back pain. Melanie claimed loss of consortium due to Teddy’s injuries.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri initially granted summary judgment in favor of Dyno, concluding that Dyno owed no duty of care to Teddy. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed this decision, finding that the issue of foreseeability, which determines duty, should be decided by a jury. On remand, a jury trial resulted in a verdict for the Scotts, awarding Teddy $13,750,000 in compensatory damages and $30 million in punitive damages, and Melanie $3 million in compensatory damages. Dyno’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial were denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment in part. The appellate court found that the jury had sufficient evidence to determine that Dyno’s actions created a foreseeable risk of harm and that Dyno breached its duty of care. However, the court reversed the award of punitive damages, concluding that the Scotts did not provide clear and convincing evidence that Dyno acted with a culpable mental state necessary for punitive damages under Missouri law. The case was remanded for entry of an amended judgment omitting the punitive damages award. View "Scott v. Dyno Nobel, Inc." on Justia Law

Ricky Hughes, a railroad employee, was injured twice at work during his Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings. He did not disclose these potential personal injury lawsuits to the bankruptcy court. About 19 months after his bankruptcy closed, Hughes filed a personal injury lawsuit against his employer and other defendants. The district court granted summary judgment against Hughes based on standing and judicial estoppel, as he had not disclosed the potential lawsuit in his bankruptcy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that Hughes had standing to bring the lawsuit. The court reasoned that the claims vested with Hughes, as per Section 1327 of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides that estate assets vest with the debtor. The court rejected the defendants' argument that Section 554(d), which provides that undisclosed estate assets that have not been expressly abandoned remain property of the estate, should control.The court also applied the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which prevents a party from asserting a position in a case that is clearly inconsistent with a position it took in a previous case. The court found that judicial estoppel applied to claims arising from the first incident but not the second. The court reasoned that when Hughes was injured for the second time, he had already made all of the payments required under his five-year plan, and there was no permissible statutory basis to modify the plan. Therefore, the bankruptcy court did not rely on the second nondisclosure, and there was no risk of inconsistent court determinations or threats to judicial integrity. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hughes v. Wisconsin Central, Ltd." on Justia Law

In October 2018, Molitor Equipment, LLC purchased two tractors from Deere & Company. These tractors were a transitional model and did not include engine compartment fire shields as standard equipment, which were included in the subsequent 2019 model. A year after purchase, both tractors caught fire in separate incidents. Molitor had an insurance policy with SECURA Insurance Company, who paid Molitor's claim and then pursued Molitor's warranty claims against Deere. SECURA claimed the tractors were defective and unreasonably dangerous due to the absence of the fire shields and that Deere's warranty obligated them to remedy the problem or refund the purchase prices.Deere moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that its warranty only covered manufacturing defects, not design defects. The district court granted Deere's motion, dismissing SECURA's breach of warranty claim to the extent it was based on a design defect theory. The case proceeded on a manufacturing defect theory. At the close of discovery, both parties moved for summary judgment. Deere argued that since the tractors conformed to their intended design, there was no manufacturing defect. The district court granted Deere's motion, holding that SECURA could not establish its breach of warranty claim because Deere's warranty covers defects only in "materials or workmanship."On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions. The appellate court agreed with the district court's interpretation of Deere's warranty, concluding that it did not cover design defects. The court also agreed that SECURA could not establish a breach of warranty claim based on a manufacturing defect, as the tractors conformed to their intended design. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of SECURA's design defect claim and its grant of summary judgment to Deere on the manufacturing defect claim. View "Secura Insurance Company v. Deere & Company" on Justia Law

In 2021, a warehouse developed by TriStar Companies, LLC but possessed by Amazon collapsed during a tornado, causing injuries and deaths. Several personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits were filed against TriStar, claiming negligence in the warehouse's construction. TriStar, insured by AXIS Surplus Insurance Company, sought coverage under their policy, but AXIS denied coverage and filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify TriStar for the resulting lawsuits. The district court granted AXIS's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the insurance policy did not cover the warehouse due to certain exclusions and limitations.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The Court of Appeals applied Missouri law, giving the insurance policy terms "the meaning which would be attached by an ordinary person of average understanding if purchasing insurance." The court found that the policy's language was clear and unambiguous. It limited coverage to premises owned, rented, or occupied by TriStar per a schedule of locations on file with AXIS. As the warehouse's location was not listed in the schedule, and TriStar did not own, rent, or occupy the warehouse when the incident occurred, the court concluded that the policy did not cover the incident.The court rejected TriStar's interpretation of the schedule of locations, which would have resulted in coverage extending to an entire city, as untenable and against common sense. Therefore, AXIS had no duty to defend or indemnify TriStar for the lawsuits arising from the warehouse collapse. View "Axis Surplus Insurance Company v. TriStar Companies, LLC" on Justia Law

Cynthia Bowen purchased an insurance policy from Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company ("Farm Bureau") for her pick-up truck. She was injured when an employee of Menard, Inc. ("Menards") accidentally dropped a large board on her while helping load her truck at a store. Bowen sued Menards for damages, alleging negligence. Menards then filed an action against Farm Bureau seeking a declaratory judgment that it was entitled to a defense and indemnification from Farm Bureau under Bowen's insurance policy. The district court ruled in favor of Menards, finding that Menards and its employee were covered insureds under the policy and that no policy exclusion applied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The court concluded that the policy's "Intrafamily Immunity" exclusion applied to the case. This exclusion stated that there was no coverage for any bodily injury to any "insured," which, in this case, included both Bowen and Menards. Therefore, the policy provided no liability coverage for Bowen's claim against Menards, another insured party. The court rejected the district court's reasoning that the term "intrafamily" limited the application of the exclusion, finding that the plain meaning of the operative policy provision prevailed. The court also rejected Menards' argument that Farm Bureau was estopped from asserting this defense to coverage. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's judgment, ruling that Farm Bureau was not obligated to provide defense and indemnification for Menards in connection with the lawsuit brought by Bowen. View "Menard, Inc. v. Farm Bureau P&C Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit examined claims by Colleen M. Johnson against her former employer, Midwest Division-RBH, LLC (Belton Regional Medical Center), her supervisor Patrick Avila, and her replacement Nicole Pasley. Johnson had been on medical leave for nine months due to heart-related issues when she informed Belton Regional that she could not give a return date. The next day, the company terminated her employment. Johnson sued under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), claiming age and disability discrimination, and also brought common law claims for emotional distress, defamation, and property damage. The district court dismissed the common law claims and granted summary judgment on the MHRA claims.On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The court rejected Johnson’s argument that her common law claims were not preempted by the MHRA, ruling that the MHRA provided the exclusive remedy for claims arising out of an employment relationship and that she had fraudulently joined the Missouri defendants to prevent removal. The court also found that Johnson could not establish a prima facie case of age or disability discrimination under the MHRA because she did not provide evidence that her age or disability was the “determinative influence” on her termination. Instead, the court concluded that Johnson was fired due to her refusal to provide a date when she would return from medical leave, not because of her age or disability. Finally, the court ruled that Johnson had waived her argument of constructive discharge by failing to provide meaningful legal analysis in her opposition to summary judgment. View "Johnson v. Midwest Division - RBH, LLC" on Justia Law

In November 2020, Autumn Hilger visited the Mount Rushmore National Memorial and slipped on a temporary access mat that was installed due to renovations, which resulted in her breaking her wrist. Hilger filed a negligence claim against the United States Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), seeking $2 million for her injuries. The Government denied her claim, leading her to sue and allege that the National Park Service (NPS), a government agency, negligently installed and maintained the access mat and failed to warn of its danger. The district court dismissed her claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, applying the discretionary-function exception to the FTCA. Hilger appealed the dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court used a two-step test to determine whether the discretionary-function exception applies, first asking whether the challenged conduct or omission is discretionary, meaning it involves judgment or choice and is not controlled by mandatory statutes or regulations. Hilger had conceded in her appeal that there were no such controlling statutes or regulations, leading the court to agree with the district court that the challenged conduct was discretionary. The second inquiry was whether the judgment or choice was based on considerations of social, economic, and political policy. The court found that Hilger's complaint did not contain sufficient factual allegations to rebut the presumption that the discretion was grounded in policy considerations. The court concluded that the decisions regarding the mat were susceptible to policy analysis and that safety concerns, which Hilger argued were key in this case, are a typical policy consideration when applying the discretionary-function exception. As such, the court affirmed the district court's order dismissing Hilger's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Hilger v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff’s son spent several months at a medium-security facility in St. Louis called “the Workhouse.” None of the guards saw Plaintiff’s son receive or take fentanyl, the drug that killed him. Inmates tried to help by rubbing ice on him once he lost consciousness. Upon arriving a few minutes later, three Officers radioed for medical assistance. In the meantime, rather than try to resuscitate Plaintiff’s son themselves, they stood by and watched as two inmates tried to help him. When trained medical personnel finally arrived four minutes later, it was too late: they were unable to revive Plaintiff’s son, who died from an overdose. Surveillance footage captured some, but not all, of these events. Plaintiff’s mother sued the City of St. Louis, the three responding officers, and two supervisors for their deliberate indifference. The district court denied summary judgment to the responding officers.   The Eighth Circuit vacated and remanded. The court held that the district court misstated the burden and relied on allegations from an unverified complaint to deny summary judgment. The court wrote that the district court erred in how it dealt with the gaps in the video footage. Instead of relying on other evidence to fill in the missing details, the findings mirrored what the plaintiff’s unverified complaint said. The court wrote that unsworn allegations are no substitute for evidence at summary judgment. The court explained that the district court tilted the scales too far in the Plaintiff’s favor by raising the summary-judgment burden on the officers and allowing unsworn allegations to rebut evidence. View "Janice Washington v. City of St. Louis, Missouri" on Justia Law

Kenneth Kraemer and Kraemer Farms, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) commenced this qui tam action under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), against United Dairies, other dairy farms, and their partners and agents (“Defendants”) alleging that they knowingly filed false crop insurance claims. Plaintiffs’ FCA Complaint alleged that Defendants (1) fraudulently obtained crop insurance payments by falsely reporting a silage-use-only variety of corn as grain and using that false statement to obtain the payments, and (2) were unjustly enriched by receiving the payments. The district court held that Defendants submitted materially false claims but denied Plaintiffs FCA relief because they failed to prove that Defendants knowingly defrauded the United States. However, the court found that certain Defendants had been unjustly enriched and awarded damages to the United States. The United States then filed a post-trial motion urging the district court to vacate or amend its judgment because Plaintiffs do not have standing to seek common law unjust enrichment relief on behalf of the United States. The district court granted the motion and vacated its judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ FCA claims must be affirmed even if Plaintiffs are correct that the district court erred in ruling that any violations were not knowing. The court wrote that because it concludes that Defendants in submitting Acreage Reporting Forms supporting their crop insurance applications did not submit materially false claims for crop insurance payments, Plaintiffs contention -the district court applied the wrong legal standard in denying FCA relief on other grounds is of no moment. View "United States ex rel. Kenneth Kraemer v. United Dairies, L.L.P." on Justia Law

After suffering a stroke, Mary, a member of the Brentwood Hutterite Brethren, received care at a Select Specialty Hospital. During her time at Select, she was covered by Brentwood’s insurance. But after Mary applied for and received Medicaid, it retroactively covered her time at Select. Select accepted $300,000 from Medicaid for Mary’s care—far less than it was expecting from Mary’s Brentwood insurance. Select sought payment from Brentwood, the Hutterite Brethren General Fund (the Fund), and South Dakota Medical Holdings Company (Dakotacare) for breach of contract. It also sought damages from Brentwood and the Fund for fraud and deceit. The district court granted summary judgment to Brentwood, the Fund, and Dakotacare. On appeal, Select argues that Brentwood and the Fund breached their contractual obligations by refusing to pay for Mary’s treatment.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Select has already accepted money from Medicaid “as payment in full” for Mary’s care. Under 42 C.F.R. Section 447.15, “the Medicaid agency must limit participation in the Medicaid program to providers who accept, as payment in full, the amounts paid by the agency.” The court wrote that as a Medicaid program participant, Select must follow this regulation. The central issue here is whether Section 447.15’s “payment in full” provision bars Select from pursuing third parties like Brentwood and the Fund after accepting payment from Medicaid. The court wrote that in its view, Section  447.15’s “payment in full” language is plain and unambiguous: Once Select accepted payment from Medicaid, it was paid in full for Mary’s care. View "Select Specialty Hospital v. Brentwood Hutterian, Brethren" on Justia Law