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

Plaintiff filed suit against his insurer, Nationwide, for breach of contract based on Nationwide’s refusal to pay for damages caused by water that leaked from a buried pipe located beneath the garage-floor slab of plaintiff's home. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment because the exclusion in plaintiff's homeowner's policy is unambiguous on its face and the court agreed with the district court's conclusion that the exclusion's language applied to water below the surface of the ground, regardless of whether that water came from a pipe. View "Bull v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins.Co." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of failure to register as a sex offender and then appealed his 21-month sentence. The court rejected defendant's claim that the district court procedurally erred by failing to give an explanation for the sentence and that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. In this case, defendant waived, on the record and in response to the district court's inquiry, any argument that the district court's explanation of its sentence at the hearing was inadequate. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant where the record reflects that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and determined that, particularly in light of defendant's previous violations of the registration requirement, the within-Guidelines sentence was appropriate. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Dieguez" on Justia Law

Defendant conditionally plead guilty to one count of knowing possession of child pornography and then appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress because defendant consented to the search of his home and internet capable devices. In this case, defendant's failure to object or limit his consent after the probation officer informed him of the need for a forensic examination of the devices prior to any revocation hearing is strong evidence of his understanding of the scope of his consent at the time. The court need not address his argument regarding any potentially diminished expectation of privacy based on the conditions of supervised release imposed on him. View "United States v. Berger" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident, the Plan paid medical benefits on plaintiff's behalf. Plaintiff also received a payment from a different carrier that insured the party who was allegedly responsible for plaintiff’s injury. The Blue Cross carriers contend that under the terms of plaintiff's benefit plan, she must use any monies obtained from the alleged tortfeasor’s insurer to reimburse the Plan for medical benefits paid by Blue Cross. Blue Cross’s position is that a provision of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act, 5 U.S.C. 8902(m)(1), expressly preempts plaintiff’s state-law defense, and that the Plan governs the question of reimbursement. The court concluded that federal law preempts the Arkansas state-law defense, and that plaintiff must reimburse the Plan. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Bell v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of OK" on Justia Law

Paul M. Gordon, convicted of three counts of rape of a minor child, appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition. The court rejected Gordon's claim that he is entitled to equitable tolling under the one-year limitations period and concluded that Gordon failed to satisfy the two-prong test for equitable tolling because he has failed to explain why he was unable to diligently pursue his federal rights during the nine month period in which he was not in treatment-precaution status. The court also held that no cause exists to excuse Gordon's procedural default. In this case, the record evidence shows that any mental illness from which Gordon suffered during the relevant time did not impede his ability to comply with Arkansas Rule 37. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of the section 2254 petition. View "Gordon v. Arkansas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant alleging various gender discrimination and retaliation claims. The district court granted summary judgment as to the discrimination and retaliation claims, and dismissed without prejudice the state constitutional claims. The court concluded that it was permissible for defendant to dismiss plaintiff on the basis of her political affiliations as a matter of law where it is appropriate for defendant to require personal and political loyalty in the Chief Deputy position. In regard to plaintiff's gender discrimination claim, she failed to identify any evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that defendant's proffered reasons for dismissing her was pretext for gender discrimination. Furthermore, plaintiff did not apply for any open positions, nor was defendant required to find her a suitable position upon dismissing her from the Chief Deputy position. Finally, the court rejected plaintiff's claim that defendant discriminated against her when he failed to hire her for the electronic records manager position because the parties agree that plaintiff did not apply for the position. In regard to the retaliation claims, the court concluded that, assuming plaintiff has established a prima facie case of retaliation, defendant offered several reasons for not hiring plaintiff, including that plaintiff was not familiar with the new computer system. Therefore, plaintiff failed to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact or raise an inference of unlawful retaliation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "DePriest v. Milligan" on Justia Law

In this insurance dispute over the adjusted value of hail-damaged crops in northwest Iowa, Bruhn challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment for Fireman's. The court concluded that there is a factual dispute about whether Fireman's breached its obligations to its insured in this case. Bruhn contends that Fireman's breached the agreement by tendering payment for the loss without first reaching agreement with Bruhn, without entry of a final judgment, and without the filing of any appraisal award. Fireman's contends that the provision merely provides a payment deadline, not a condition precedent to payment issuance. Because there is an issue of fact as to whether Fireman's breached the insurance contract and because the factual issues in the breach claim are relevant to the bad-faith claim, this claim survives summary judgment as well. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bruhn Farms Joint Venture v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an insured under a commercial-property insurance policy issued by Country Mutual, was awarded $76,065.50 by the jury for covered hail and wind damage to her property. However, the jury found that the policy did not cover water damage to the interiors of the property. Plaintiff appealed. The court concluded that the district court applied the law correctly under the federal rules and acted within the scope of its discretion in excluding certain portions from the supplemental expert reports; plaintiff was not prejudiced by the exclusion of this evidence to an extent resulting in fundamental unfairness; and the jury instructions fairly and adequately presented the issues in the case to the jury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for new trial and entry of judgment. View "Amplatz v. Country Mutual Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the City of St. Paul, its police chief, and police officer Patricia Englund, alleging violations of his First Amendment right to engage in religious speech at the 2014 Irish Fair. The district court denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint based on lack of standing. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims against the city, its police chief, and Englund in her official capacity based on lack of standing because plaintiff failed to allege facts that affirmatively and plausibly suggest that he was indeed subject to a credible threat of prosecution under St. Paul's policies for engaging in religious expression. The court concluded, however, that plaintiff has standing to pursue his claim against Englund in her individual capacity where 42 U.S.C. 1983 imposes liability on an official who oversteps her authority and misuses her power. In this case, Englund allegedly threatened to confiscate banners plaintiff displayed, creating a concrete threat of injury regardless of whether she also threatened to arrest him. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and the dismissal of his claims based on future constitutional violations. View "Miller v. City of St. Paul" on Justia Law

Gosiger filed suit seeking damages for the diminished value of an aircraft that Elliott damaged. The district court granted summary judgment to Elliott. The court affirmed the district court's ruling that the contract did not allow diminution-in-value damages where Gosiger and Elliott never mutually agreed to modify the Specification Agreement to allow for diminution-in-value damages. View "Gosiger, Inc. v. Elliott Aviation, Inc." on Justia Law