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

Plaintiffs filed a class action suit alleging that CUT violated the Missouri Uniform Code (Mo UCC) and Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) by participating in a subprime motor vehicle lending program administered by now-bankrupt Centrix. The court concluded that plaintiffs' MO UCC claims were time-barred whether they were subject to the five-year statute of limitations in section 516.120(2) or the three-year statute of limitations in section 516.130(2); the court denied plaintiffs' motion to supplement the record and to take judicial notice of various Missouri legislative materials related to Mo. Rev. Stat. 516.420; the five year statute of limitations in section 516.120(2) applies in this case because plaintiffs' MMPA claims are actions based upon a liability created by a statute other than a penalty; even if section 516.120(5) applied to plaintiffs' MMPA claims, they are still time-barred because the causes of action accrued no later than March 2005 under either section 516.120(2) or 516.120(5). Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment that the claims were time-barred. View "Huffman, et al. v. Credit Union of Texas" on Justia Law

After two boys drowned at a pool party sponsored by the FCA, the boys' survivors filed suit against the FCA in state court, alleging negligence and loss of consortium. The FCA then filed this declaratory judgment and breach of contract action against its insurers in federal district court seeking a "judicial determination as to whether Iowa Claims constitute one or two occurrences" under its commercial general liability insurance policy. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the primary insurer, holding that there existed only one occurrence. View "Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. Ironshore Specialty Ins." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against a semi-truck driver and his company for injuries plaintiff sustained in a traffic accident. The jury returned a verdict assigning no fault to either party and plaintiff appealed. The court concluded that, given the district court's pre-trial ruling that the accident report was inadmissible, defendants should not have been allowed to introduce the officer's opinions and conclusions from the accident report. The introduction of the investigating officer's opinions and conclusions was improper and had a substantial influence on the jury's verdict. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Valedez v. Watkins Motor Lines, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought coverage from Farm Bureau for flood damage to her home but failed to submit the one-page proof of loss form required by the federal standard flood insurance policy. The court concluded that plaintiff's failure to complete and submit the form precluded coverage as a matter of federal statutory, regulatory, and common law. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Farm Bureau. The court declined to tax Farm Bureau's costs against plaintiff. View "Stoner v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins." on Justia Law

After the denial of his flood insurance claim, plaintiff filed suit against Farm Bureau alleging a state bad faith claim and federal breach of contract. The court held that the district court committed reversible legal error by excusing plaintiff from complying with the standard flood insurance policy's (SFIP) proof of loss requirement. Even if Farm Bureau wished to waive the proof of loss, FEMA has not authorized waiver in this case. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Farm Bureau. View "McCarty v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co." on Justia Law

United Fire sought a declaratory judgment that an insurance policy it issued to Rose did not provide coverage to Wayne Rockett, a supervisory level employee of Rose. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to United Fire, concluding that the term "directors" in the insurance policy unambiguously provided coverage only to Rose's actual board of directors and not to employees such as Rockett. View "United Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to receipt of child pornography. The court concluded that the district court properly applied the cross reference to U.S.S.G. 2G2.1 and its related sentencing enhancements based on defendant's admission that he photographed himself having sexual intercourse with his eleven year old nephew; the district court did not clearly err in finding that the victim had been twelve years of age at the time of the sexual offense so as to apply the section 2G2.1(b)(1)(A) enhancement; and the district court reasonably applied the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors in sentencing defendant to the guidelines range of twenty years imprisonment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Zayas" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for smuggling firearms out of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 554. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in submitting a jury instruction on deliberate indifference. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Galimah" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, three counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base; and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the information contained in the search warrant application provided sufficient probable cause to issue a warrant to search defendant's residence and, therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant waived his claim that the district court abused its discretion when it did not allow his attorney additional time to review Jencks materials. Finally, there was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdicts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Duke" on Justia Law

Defendant walked away from a prison camp at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) and a federal magistrate judge issued a warrant for his arrest. Defendant pled guilty to one count of escape of a prisoner in custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. 751(a). The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's request for a four-level reduction to his base offense level under U.S.S.G. 2P1.1(b)(3) where the reduction does not apply to defendants who escape from a prison camp because prison camps are not similar to the institutions described by section 2P1.1(b)(3). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Batts" on Justia Law