Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In 2006, Plaintiffs sustained serious injuries in an automobile accident and incurred medical expenses in excess of $1,000,000. Plaintiffs subsequently learned that they had only $5,000 in medical payments coverage and did not have any underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage after a transfer of their Oregon State Farm policy to Montana by the Mark Olson State Farm Agency. The driver who caused the accident carried the statutory minimum automobile liability insurance limits. Plaintiffs sued State Farm and Mark Olson, requesting declaratory relief and a reformation of the contract and alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and conduct sufficient to support an award of punitive damages. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in entered summary judgment in favor of State Farm and Olson on Plaintiffs' negligence claims. Remanded for trial. View "Bailey v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case concerned the proper procedure by which a workers' compensation insurer may enforce a subrogation claim arising under Mississippi Code Section 71-3-71. Richard Shoemake was injured in Alabama but received workers' compensation benefits from Liberty Mutual Insurance Company under Mississippi law. He brought and settled a third-party action in Alabama state court and reimbursed Liberty Mutual only the amount it was entitled to under Alabama law. Liberty Mutual, which knew of but did not join or intervene in the Alabama lawsuit, then sued Shoemake in the Circuit Court of Newton County, seeking full reimbursement as allowed under Section 71-3-71. In granting Shoemake summary judgment, the circuit court held that Alabama law applied and further concluded that res judicata and Liberty Mutual's failure to intervene in the Alabama action barred Liberty Mutual's claim. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Mississippi law governed the amount of Liberty Mutual's subrogation claim and that Liberty Mutual was not required to intervene in the Alabama action to become entitled to reimbursement under Mississippi law. Because the Mississippi Supreme Court found that 71-3-71 requires a workers' compensation insurer to join or intervene in a third-party action to become entitled to reimbursement, it reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the circuit court. View "Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Shoemake" on Justia Law

This case involved the interpretation of two contractual provisions under Minnesota law: an indemnification clause in a contract between PDSI and Miller and an insurance contract between Harleysville and PDSI which extended insurance coverage to PDSI's indemnification of third parties for tort liability caused, in whole or in part, by PDSI or by those acting on its behalf. The court agreed with the district court's finding that a PDSI employee's suit fell squarely within the indemnity provision of the 1989 Agreement between PDSI and Miller. The court also agreed with the district court's interpretation of the insurance agreements as requiring Harleysville to cover Miller's settlement of the employee's claims. Further, the court concluded that the undisputed facts established as a matter of law that PDSI or those acting on its behalf at least partly caused the employee's bodily injury within the terms of the Harleysville policy. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Harleysville Ins. Co. v. Physical Distrib. Serv., et al" on Justia Law

This case arose out of the payment of benefits pursuant to an Aflac accident insurance policy. Defendant and the decedent's siblings challenged the district court's entry of summary judgment and order compelling arbitration of defendant's claims against Aflac and its agents. At issue was whether defendant's affidavit, which included her opinion that the signature on the arbitration acknowledgment form was a forgery, was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. The court concluded that defendant's affidavit was never made part of the summary judgment record before the district court and therefore failed to create a genuine issue of material fact on the authenticity of the decedent's signature. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "American Family Life Assurance Co. of Columbus v. Biles, et al" on Justia Law

In 2005, Curtis McGhee and another individual brought claims against the City alleging violations of civil rights sounding in malicious prosecution. The City sought coverage under insurance policies issued by CIC and Columbia. On appeal, the City and McGhee challenged the district court's order granting summary judgment to CIC and Columbia, on CIC's and Columbia's declaratory judgment claims concerning coverage under the various insurance policies. The court concluded that the district court correctly refused to consider and correctly denied additional discovery of extrinsic evidence. The court also concluded that the alleged malicious prosecution and resulting personal injuries occurred when the underlying charges were filed against McGhee in 1977. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment that the following policies did not afford coverage to the City for the malicious prosecution claims: the two excess liability policies issued by CIC; four of the special excess liability policies issued by Columbia; and the commercial umbrella liability policy issued by Columbia. As to the 1977-78 special excess liability policy issued by Columbia, the court reversed the district court's judgment regarding the applicability of the reasonable expectations doctrine. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Chicago Ins. Co., et al v. City of Council Bluffs, et al" on Justia Law

Following a car accident with an uninsured motorist, Lori McDonnell filed suit against her insurer State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company on behalf of herself and her minor son, Luke. McDonnell sought a declaratory judgment that: (1) she was entitled to have her personal injury claims settled by appraisal under the mandatory appraisal statute; and (2) a provision in her State Farm insurance policies requiring her to file suit against the insurance company within two years of the accident was void as against public policy. The superior court ruled that the mandatory appraisal statute did not apply to personal injury claims. The court further ruled that the contractual two-year limitations provision was enforceable, but only if State Farm could show that it was prejudiced by an insured's delay in bringing suit, and that the appropriate accrual date for the limitations period was the date State Farm denied an insured’s claim, rather than the date of the accident. McDonnell and State Farm both appealed that decision. Finding no error in the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "McDonnell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The question before the Supreme Court in this appeal was whether a defendant who pled no contest to disorderly conduct in a criminal action could be collaterally estopped from relitigating the elements of that crime in a related civil declaratory judgment action regarding insurance coverage, thereby precluding coverage. Kent Bearden pled no contest to disorderly conduct for punching Paul Rasmussen. Rasmussen subsequently filed a civil complaint against Bearden, and Bearden tendered the lawsuit to State Farm Insurance Company to defend and indemnify him under his homeowners insurance policy. State Farm sought declaratory relief and moved for summary judgment on the ground that Bearden's conduct could not be considered an "accident" within the meaning of the insurance policy because his no-contest plea collaterally estopped him from relitigating the issues of mens rea and self-defense. The superior court granted the motion. Finding no error with the superior court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Bearden v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co." on Justia Law

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