Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Saloojas, Inc. (“Saloojas”) filed five actions against Aetna Health of California, Inc. (“Aetna”), seeking to recover the difference in cost between its posted cash price for COVID-19 testing and the amount of reimbursement it received from Aetna. Saloojas argues that Section 3202 of the CARES Act requires Aetna to reimburse out-of-network providers like Saloojas for the cash price of diagnostic tests listed on their websites. The district court dismissed this action on the ground that the CARES Act does not provide a private right of action to enforce violations of Section 3202.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The panel held that the CARES Act does not provide a private right of action to enforce violations of Section 3202. Saloojas correctly conceded that the CARES Act did not create an express private right of action. The panel held that there is not an implied private right of action for providers to sue insurers. The use of mandatory language requiring reimbursement at the cash price does not demonstrate Congress’s intent to create such a right. The statute does not use “rights-creating language” that places “an unmistakable focus” on the individuals protected as opposed to the party regulated. View "SALOOJAS, INC. V. AETNA HEALTH OF CALIFORNIA, INC." on Justia Law

The Estate of Josiah Wheeler and Josiah’s parents, Keith and Rhetta Wheeler (collectively, “the Wheelers”) appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Garrison”).   The Ninth Circuit explained that because this case involves an issue of first impression under Alaska law, it respectfully asks the Alaska Supreme Court to exercise its discretion to decide the following certified question: Does a total pollution exclusion in a homeowners’ insurance policy exclude coverage of claims arising from carbon monoxide exposure? View "THE ESTATE OF JOSIAH WHEELER, ET AL V. GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals in the underlying insurance dispute, holding that the insurance policy at issue did not incorporate the payout limits in an underlying service agreement.ExxonMobil Corporation hired Savage Refinery Services to work as an independent contractor at Exxon's Baytown refinery, and the parties memorialized their arrangement with a service agreement. Under the agreement, Savage promised to obtain at least a minimum stated amount of liability insurance for its employees and to name Exxon as an additional insured. Savage ultimately procured five different insurance policies, three of which were underwritten by National Union Fire Insurance Company and Starr Indemnity & Liability Insurance Company. After a workplace accident at the Baytown Refinery two injured employees sought compensation. Plaintiffs settled with Exxon for $24 million. When National Union and Starr denied Exxon coverage under their umbrella policies Exxon sued for breach of contract. The trial court ruled for Exxon. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Exxon was not insured under National Union's umbrella policy. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Exxon was an "insured" under National Union's umbrella policy and that the lower court's ruling with respect to Starr's bumbershoot policy was predicated on a similar error. View "ExxonMobil Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA" on Justia Law

Husband Steven McAnulty was married twice: once to Plaintiff Elizabeth McAnulty, and once to Defendant Melanie McAnulty. Husband's first marriage ended in divorce; the second ended with his death. Husband’s only life-insurance policy (the Policy) named Defendant as the beneficiary. But the Missouri divorce decree between Plaintiff and Husband required Husband to procure and maintain a $100,000 life-insurance policy with Plaintiff listed as sole beneficiary until his maintenance obligation to her was lawfully terminated (which never happened). Plaintiff sued Defendant and the issuer of the Policy, Standard Insurance Company (Standard), claiming unjust enrichment and seeking the imposition on her behalf of a constructive trust on $100,000 of the insurance proceeds. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff appealed. By stipulation of the parties, Standard was dismissed with respect to this appeal. The only question to be resolved was whether Plaintiff stated a claim. Resolving that issue required the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to predict whether the Colorado Supreme Court would endorse Illustration 26 in Comment g to § 48 of the Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment (Am. L. Inst. 2011) (the Restatement (Third)), which would recognize a cause of action in essentially the same circumstances. Because the Tenth Circuit predicted the Colorado Supreme Court would endorse Illustration 26, the Court held Plaintiff has stated a claim of unjust enrichment, and accordingly reversed the previous dismissal of her case. View "McAnulty v. McAnulty, et al." on Justia Law

Princeton Excess and Surplus Lines Insurance Company (PESLIC) filed this declaratory judgment action. PESLIC issued two commercial liability insurance policies to the Clubs covering the time period relevant to the Models’ claims: Number 1RA3GL0000179–01, with a policy period of November 9, 2015, to November 9, 2016 (the 01 Policy); and Number 1RA3GL0000179–02, with a policy period of November 9, 2016, to November 9, 2017 (the 02 Policy). The policies have identical coverage provisions but contain slightly different exclusions. The parties dispute whether this exclusion renders illusory the Personal and Advertising Injury coverage provided in the 02 Policy. If it does not, then the Clubs have no coverage applicable to the Models’ claims; if it does, then they have coverage, as the district court held.   The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment ruling. The court held PESLIC does not have a duty to defend or indemnify the Clubs in the underlying lawsuit because neither the 01 Policy nor the 02 Policy provides coverage for the claims alleged by the Models. The court explained that the text of the 02 Policy is not ambiguous, and Texas law “presumes that the party knows and accepts the contract terms.” Those terms disclose that the policy’s Personal and Advertising Injury coverage comprises a single category of coverage and further that the Exhibition and Related Marketing Exclusion removes much but by no means all, of that coverage. The 02 Policy is, therefore, not illusory, and the exclusion must be enforced, constraining the court to conclude there is no coverage for the Models’ underlying claims under the 02 Policy. View "Princeton Excess v. AHD Houston" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Travelers Indemnity Company of America, seeking a declaration that an insurance policy between Travelers and the City of Hermantown authorizes up to $2,000,000 in coverage for his tort claim against the city. The district court granted summary judgment for Plaintiff, and Travelers appeals.   The court concluded that the insurance policy limits the amount of Plaintiff’s recovery to $500,000 and therefore reversed the judgment. The court explained that under Minnesota law, a municipality is liable for its torts and those of its employees acting within the scope of their employment. But a municipality may obtain insurance coverage for damages “in excess of the limit of liability imposed by section 466.04,” and procurement of such insurance waives the statutory limit of liability. The court concluded that the insurance policy authorizes coverage up to only $500,000 for Plaintiff’s claim. The policy provides different limits for different types of liabilities. The policy provides a coverage limit of $2,000,000 for claims not subject to the statutory limit set forth in Minn. Stat. Section 466.04. But for claims subject to the statutory limit in Section 466.04, the endorsement expressly limits coverage to $500,000. The substance of this contractual arrangement is no different than if the parties agreed on two separate policies for the two different types of liability. Plaintiff’s claim for injuries arising from an automobile accident in Hermantown is subject to Minnesota’s $500,000 cap on municipal tort liability. View "James Prisk v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America" on Justia Law

K.C. Hopps, Ltd., sued its insurer, The Cincinnati Insurance Company, seeking coverage for lost business income incurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cincinnati moved for summary judgment based on K.C. Hopps’s inability to show physical loss or damage, which the district court denied. After the jury returned a verdict for Cincinnati, K.C. Hopps renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law and moved for a new trial. The district court denied both motions.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that K.C. Hopps alleged that COVID-19 particles were present at its properties. The court wrote that has repeatedly rejected similar claims for COVID-19-related business interruptions because the insured did not sufficiently allege physical loss or damage. The court explained that even if K.C. Hopps could show actual contamination of its properties, any possible contamination was not the cause of its lost business income. K.C. Hopps did not limit its operations because COVID-19 particles were found at its properties—it did so because of the shutdown orders. K.C. Hopps remained open until government orders limited its operations. And even if its premises weren’t contaminated, K.C. Hopps “would have been subject to the exact same restrictions.” View "K.C. Hopps, Ltd. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court in favor of Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company in this action seeking a declaration that BAS Holding Corporation breached a condition of the parties' insurance contract, holding that the district court's findings providing grounds for summary judgment were insupportable.After an arsonist destroyed a building owned by BAS and purportedly insured against loss by Philadelphia, the insurer sought an examination under oath (EUO) of George Carney, BAS's president and owner. Philadelphia then denied coverage on the grounds that BAS refused to provide Carney for an EUO, in violation of its obligations under the relevant insurance policy. Philadelphia then brought this action. The district court granted summary judgment for Philadelphia on the ground that BAS failed to cooperate by refusing to submit to the EUO. The First Circuit vacated the judgment, holding that where the evidence unequivocally showed the BAS never willfully and inexcusably refused to provide Carney for the EUO, and therefore summary judgment was improper. View "Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. BAS Holding Corp." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting United States Liability Insurance Group's (USLI) motion to dismiss this lawsuit brought by Nahant Preservation Trust, Inc. to secure insurance coverage in connection with defense costs and indemnification arising from a state court action brought by Northeastern University, holding that there was no error.Northeastern sued Nahant in state court seeking a declaratory judgment regarding its rights concerning certain land. Nahant, which carried liability insurance through USLI, did not notify USLI of the suit until it wrote to USLI seeking coverage for defense costs. USLI refused to provide coverage on the grounds that Nahant had provided untimely notice of the claim. Thereafter Nahant sued USLI seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment regarding USLI's duty to defend and indemnify. The First circuit granted USLI's motion to dismiss, concluding that the "exclusion agreement" signed by the parties excluded coverage. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court properly accepted USLI's plausible reading of the exclusion amendment. View "Nahant Preservation Trust, Inc. v. Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Allstate Insurance Company and several of its affiliates (collectively, Allstate) brought qui tam actions on behalf of the State of California alleging insurance fraud under the California Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) (and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) against three medical corporations, a medical management company and its parent company, four physicians, and Sattar Mir, an individual. The trial court found the complaints failed to state causes of action under the IFPA and the UCL because they were not pled with requisite specificity, the business models alleged were lawful, and one of the actions was time-barred.   The Second Appellate District reversed the orders sustaining the demurrers and judgments of dismissal. The court explained that the trial court found the complaints failed to state causes of action under the IFPA and the UCL because they were not pled with requisite specificity, the business models alleged were lawful, and one of the actions was time-barred. The court concluded that the operative complaints adequately plead causes of action under both statutes. View "P. ex rel. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Discovery Radiology etc." on Justia Law