Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Brooks Insurance Agency, Sidney Brooks (its agent), and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company (collectively "Nationwide") petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Jefferson Circuit Court to vacate its order denying their motion to dismiss an action filed by Guster Law Firm, LLC, and Guster Properties, LLP (collectively "Guster"), against them. Guster made a claim for a fire loss under commercial property policies issued to it by Nationwide. In April 2011, Nationwide filed a declaratory-judgment action requesting that the federal court determine the rights and obligations under the insurance policies it had issued to Guster. Guster answered and asserted compulsory counterclaims against Nationwide, including bad-faith failure to pay an insurance claim and breach of contract, among others. Months later, Guster filed a lawsuit in the Jefferson Circuit Court alleging against the agency, Brooks, and Nationwide: negligent/wanton failure to provide insurance coverage; misrepresentation; suppression and concealment; and negligent/wanton failure to train. The agency, Brooks, and Nationwide moved to dismiss the state court action on the ground that the action violated the state abatement statute and the compulsory-counterclaim rule. The trial court summarily denied the motion to dismiss. The agency, Brooks, and Nationwide then petitioned the Supreme Court for mandamus relief. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and issued the writ. Although the causes of action in the federal court and the state court arose out of the same transaction or occurrence and were thus related, Guster's claims against the agency and Brooks were not compulsory counterclaims in the federal declaratory-judgment action because the agency and Brooks were not "opposing part[ies]" in the federal action. Accordingly, the Alabama abatement statute mandated that the claims against Nationwide in Guster's complaint filed in state court be dismissed. The Court concluded that the agency and Brooks did not show a clear legal right to the dismissal of Guster's claims against them in the state-court action. However, Nationwide did show a clear legal right to the dismissal of Guster's claims against it in the state-court action, therefore the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss as to Nationwide. View "Guster Law Firm, LLC v. Brooks Insurance Agency" on Justia Law

After Lumbermens denied Smith Flooring's claim for loss of one of their buildings, Smith Flooring filed suit alleging breach of contract and sought a declaratory judgment as to the terms of the insurance policy. Lumbermens removed the case to the district court and counterclaimed for reformation of the insurance policy. The court held that the district court erred in finding that there were no issues common to the parties' legal and equitable claims; Smith Flooring had a Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury on the common issue of what the terms of the intended contract were; the district court also erred in treating the jury's verdict as merely advisory under Rule 39 insofar as this issue was concerned; however, the district court's error did not necessitate reversal of its granting post-verdict judgment as a matter of law to Lumbermens. The court further held that the evidence in this case was not sufficient to support the jury's verdict in Smith Flooring's favor. Because there was no coverage for the building, it followed that Lumbermens did not breach its contract in denying Smith Flooring's proof of loss. With no breach, Lumbermens owed Smith Flooring no damages. The district court was correct to find that clear, cogent, and convincing evidence demonstrated that the policy did not accurately set forth the agreement between the parties and that the building at issue be excluded from coverage. Consequently, the district court did not err in reforming the policy. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Smith Flooring v. Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner was a passenger in a motor vehicle accident in which her husband, the driver, was killed and Petitioner suffered serious injuries. At the time of the accident, Petitioner and her husband had a motor vehicle liability insurance policy with State Farm Auto and an umbrella policy with State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (collectively, State Farm). State Farm denied Petitioner's claim under the umbrella policy pursuant to a household exclusion, which excluded coverage in certain instances for injury the insured's family members. Petitioner contended that the household exclusion in the umbrella policy was void in light of Md. Code Ann. Ins. 19-504.1, which requires an insurer to offer liability coverage for family members in the same amount of liability coverage for nonfamily members under a policy of "private passenger motor vehicle liability insurance." The circuit court ruled in favor of State Farm. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the umbrella policy did not fit within the definition of "private passenger motor vehicle liability insurance" as contained in section 19-504.1, such that State Farm was not required to offer Petitioner and her husband liability coverage for family members in the same amount as the liability coverage for nonfamily members. View "Stickley v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. " on Justia Law

When a property or casualty insurer becomes insolvent, the Maryland Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Corporation (PCIGC) assumes responsibility for any outstanding claims or litigation. In this case, an insurance company settled a claim with an insured party but became insolvent before the agreement could be approved by a court. Respondents filed a complaint against PCIGC seeking declaratory relief, asking the circuit court to find they settled the claim and that PCIGC was obligated to pay the statutory maximum on both an underlying insurance policy and an umbrella policy. PCIGC sought to challenge the settlement reached by the parties and argued that it should not have to pay its statutory maximum on the policies when the claims stemmed from a single incident. The court of special appeals held (1) PCIGC may challenge a settlement only on limited grounds, such as fraud or collusion, and the corporation bears the burden of proving its reason for challenging a claim, and (2) PCIGC was liable for the statutory maximum on both policies. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) PCIGC had no sufficient grounds for properly challenging the settlement; and (2) requiring PCIGC to pay covered claims under separate policies was within its statutory mandate. View "Prop. & Cas. Ins. Guar. Corp. v. Beebe-Lee" on Justia Law

Employee sustained injuries in the course of his employment with Four Star Transportation. Despite being hired by Four Star, Employee was initially considered an employee of Better Integrated Services. Better Integrated leased Employee to Beacon Enterprises, which then leased Employee to Four Star. Beacon had an insurance policy with Kentucky Employers' Mutual Insurance (KEMI). An ALJ determined (1) Employee's injury entitled him to benefits and a permanent partial disability award, and (2) KEMI's policy covered Employee's injury. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding Employee was not covered under the KEMI policy due to the fact he was unaware that Four Star was leasing him from different entities, including Beacon. The court of appeals affirmed. The Uninsured Employers' Fund appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Employee could not be considered Beacon's employee because he did not enter into a contract for hire with Beacon; (2) the Board did not act arbitrarily in finding that the ALJ's opinion was not supported by substantial evidence; and (3) the Board and lower court's decision was not based on Better Integrated and Beacon's failure to comply with Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.615. View "Ky. Uninsured Employers' Fund v. Hoskins" on Justia Law

Clarinet sued Essex alleging that Essex wrongfully refused to pay Clarinet under a commercial general liability insurance policy. Clarinet sought payment for expenses for stabilizing and demolishing a building that it owned, in accordance with Clarinet's interpretation of the policy. Essex denied coverage and refused payment. The insurance policy contained several conditions and exclusions, including the owned property exclusion. The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment to Essex and denied relief to Clarinet because the owned property exclusion barred coverage. View "Clarinet v. Essex Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In 2007, Employers Mutual Casualty Company (EMC) brought a declaratory judgment action against the Donnellys and Rimar Construction, Inc. (RMI) to establish that under its policy of insurance with RCI, EMC had no duty or responsibility to pay damages claimed by the Donnellys in litigation between the Donnellys and RCI. The declaratory judgment action was stayed until a verdict was reached in the underlying action. In the underlying action, the Donnellys were awarded damages, costs and attorney fees against RCI. Subsequently the district court entered summary judgment in the declaratory action, finding that there was no insurance coverage for the damages the Donnellys incurred, but that there was coverage for costs and attorney fees. On appeal, EMC argued that the district court erred in its determination that it had a duty to pay attorney fees and costs when there were no damages awarded to the plaintiff subject to the policy coverage. The Donnellys cross appealed, arguing the district court erred in its conclusion that EMC did not have a duty to cover the damages in this case, and that the Donnellys were entitled to attorney fees. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Employers Mutual Casualty Co v. Donnelly" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a claim with his Insurer under his policy for stolen tools and equipment, which Insurer denied. Plaintiff sued. The district court granted summary judgment for Insurer. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for entry of judgment for Plaintiff. On remand, Plaintiff requested and received attorney fees related to both the district court and the appellate proceedings. The court of appeals reversed the award of appellate attorney fees, concluding Plaintiff had waived his right to appellate fees by not filing a motion for attorney fees with the court of appeals in the prior appeal. Petitioner filed a motion requesting appellate attorney fees for his second appeal in Snider II. The court of appeals awarded additional appellate attorney fees. Plaintiff appealed, requesting a judgment for the appellate attorney fees incurred in Snider I and an award of additional fees for the appeal in Snider II. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals (1) correctly applied Supreme Court Rule 7.07(b), Evans v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., and Kan. Stat. Ann. 40-908; and (2) did not err in determining the amount of reasonable attorney fees related this current appeal. View "Snider v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

AEGIS, an insurer, appealed from the district court's denial of its motion to compel alternative dispute resolution in its dispute with UEC. The court agreed with the district court that by agreeing in the endorsement of the contract to submit to the jurisdiction of Missouri state courts, AEGIS agreed to have any dispute relating to the insurance or to the claim resolved in those courts. Thus, the endorsement entirely supplanted the condition's mandatory arbitration provision. Even if the policy as a whole were ambiguous as to the mandatory arbitration, the court concluded that UEC would still prevail because it would be entitled to have the ambiguity resolved in its favor. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Union Electric Co. v. AEGIS Energy Syndicate 1225" on Justia Law

The Doctors Company (TDC), a professional liability insurance company, sought a determination that its coverage of policyholder Women's Healthcare Associates (WHA) did not apply to a pending breach of contract action relating to WHA's participation in the Virginia Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Act (the Birth Injury Fund). The Davidson family filed the underlying breach of contract action against WHA, alleging that they entered into an express contract with WHA partly in reliance on WHA's participation in the Birth Injury Fund, and WHA materially breached the contract by failing to pay into the fund as represented to the Davidsons. The circuit court ruled against TDC and in favor of WHA and the Davidsons, finding that the policy covered the claim alleged by the Davidsons in their complaint against WHA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the underlying action was covered by the insurance policy; and (2) therefore, TDC must both defend and indemnify WHA in the underling breach of contract action. View "The Doctors Co. v. Women's Healthcare Assocs." on Justia Law