Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Heubel and Raymond appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Universal on Heubal's claim for coverage under a Universal insurance policy. The district court held that Heubel's breach of a cooperation clause in the Universal policy absolved Universal of the duty to defend or provide coverage for a products liability lawsuit against Heubel. Because no reservation of rights or conflict of interest entitled Heubel to select its own counsel while continuing to enjoy the coverage benefits of the Universal policy, Heubel breached the policy by refusing to allow Universal to control the defense. Because nothing in the Universal policy or the Raymond indemnification program precluded a third-party indemnification claim by Universal against Raymond in the Harris suit, Universal suffered substantial prejudice from Heubel's refusal to allow Universal to control the defense. As a result, Universal was justified in denying coverage based on Heubel's breach of the cooperation clause. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Heubel Materials Handling Co. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Allianz appealed the district court's grant of judgment in favor of plaintiff on his claim that Allianz miscalculated the monthly benefit to which he was entitled under a long-term disability insurance policy. Allianz contended that the district court improperly interpreted the offset provision of the policy. The court concluded that the policy's offset provision was not afflicted with ambiguity and the district court should not have resorted to canons of construction to determine the unwritten intent of the provision. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Allianz. View "Duckworth v. Allianz Life Ins. Co., et al" on Justia Law

A construction crane owned and operated by a construction company (Jacobsmeyer) fell on a building. Jacobsmeyer's insurer (Travelers) reached a settlement agreement with the designer and manufacturer of the crane (Grove) wherein Grove agreed to pay Jacobsmeyer and Travelers (hereinafter referred to collectively as Jacobsmeyer) for a majority of their remaining losses associated with the accident. Jacobsmeyer subsequently sued Grove and its parent company (hereinafter referred to jointly as Manitowoc) for breach of the settlement agreement. Manitowoc filed third-party petition claims for contribution and/or indemnity against U.S. Steel, alleging that U.S. Steel's predecessor-in-interest provided the faulty steel for the crane. The trial court dismissed Manitowoc's third-party petition with prejudice because Manitowoc failed to satisfy pleading requirements where it did not admit its own liability as a joint tortfeasor in its third-party petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a party seeking contribution or indemnity need not admit its own fault in its third-party petition but rather can deny liability in its answer to the plaintiff's petition and assert in its third-party petition that if it is liable to the plaintiff, then the third-party defendant is liable to it. Remanded. View "Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Manitowoc Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and her husband were traveling in Plaintiff's automobile when Tortfeasor collided with the automobile, causing significant injuries to Plaintiff and her husband. At the time of the collision, the motor vehicle driven by Tortfeasor was underinsured. Plaintiff submitted a claim for underinsured motorist coverage to her Insurer. Insurer refused to provide coverage in light of Plaintiff's recovery under a settlement agreement with Tortfeasor. Subsequently, Plaintiff brought this action seeking underinsured motorist coverage under her policy. The trial court granted summary judgment for Insurer, concluding Insurer was entitled to a setoff equal to the amount of the entire settlement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Insurer was entitled to a reduction of its limits of liability for underinsured motorist coverage by an amount equal to the sum of punitive damages paid to Plaintiff. View "Anastasia v. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wis." on Justia Law

Respondent sued Appellants for negligence and resulting injuries sustained in a car accident. The parties entered into a tentative settlement subject to Respondent giving her underinsured motorist (UIM) carrier notice under Schmidt v. Clothier to preserve her potential UIM claim. The UIM carrier elected to substitute its check for the tortfeasor's check pursuant to Schmidt-Clothier. Respondent accepted the substitute check. The negligence claim proceeded to trial, where a jury found Appellants negligent. The district court entered judgment in favor of Respondent and the UIM carrier. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment for Respondent but reversed for the UIM carrier. The Supreme Court affirmed the reversal of the judgment in favor of the UIM carrier but reversed the court of appeals' decision affirming the judgment for Respondent, holding that an injured party may not continue to pursue a negligence claim against the tortfeasor after she has agreed to settle the negligence action under the Schmidt-Clothier procedure and has accepted the substituted check from the UIM carrier. View "Isaac v. Ho" on Justia Law

L.H. Bolduc Company, Inc. (Bolduc) was the subcontractor of Engineering and Construction Innovations, Inc. (ECI). Bolduc damaged a sewer pipe while working on a construction project. ECI repaired the damage and sought reimbursement from Bolduc's insurer, The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut (Travelers) under an endorsement to Bolduc's policy naming ECI as an additional insured for liability caused by acts or omissions of Bolduc. Travelers denied coverage. ECI subsequently sued Bolduc and Travelers (collectively, Appellants) for negligence and breach of contract. A jury found that Bolduc was not negligent, and the district court granted summary judgment for Appellants on ECI's breach of contract claims, concluding that Appellants had no obligation to reimburse ECI for damages not caused by Bolduc. The court of appeals reversed, determining (1) ECI was entitled to coverage as an additional insured without regard to Bolduc's fault; and (2) Bolduc was required to indemnity ECI. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) ECI did not qualify as an additional insured with respect to the pipe damage; and (2) Bolduc could not be required to indemnify ECI without violating Minn. Stat. 337.02, which prohibits indemnification for the fault of others in construction contracts. View "Eng'g & Constr. Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co., Inc." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on an insured's duty to cooperate with an insurer's claim investigation. Petitioner John Staples' claim was denied for failing to cooperate, namely failing to submit to an examination under oath (EUO). Petitioner sued the insurer for bad faith and related causes of action; the trial court dismissed the case on summary judgment. Upon review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded that genuine issues of fact still existed and made summary judgment inappropriate in this case. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Staples v. Allstate Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In 1989, Southeastern recovered a judgment against David Herzig in a North Carolina court. In August 1998, the North Carolina judgment was transcribed and filed in North Dakota under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, and renewed in North Carolina in 2000, and was again transcribed and filed in North Dakota for enforcement purposes. In 2004, Alphild Herzig, David Herzig's mother, was joined as a party. In 2005, Southeastern moved for an order compelling Alphild Herzig to comply with Southeastern's discovery requests and requested sanctions. In June 2006, Southeastern moved to compel discovery and requested sanctions. The court granted Southeastern's motion for sanctions against Alphild Herzig contingent on submission of a checklist of items to be produced so the court could set a daily sanction for each item not provided. The court also found Alphild Herzig was in contempt and awarded attorney fees. In August 2006, Alphild Herzig moved for release from the sanctions. The court denied her motion. In 2008, Alphild Herzig moved for an order to dismiss her as a party in the original action and vacating the 2004 order joining her as a party and all subsequent orders issued against her, including the 2006 contempt orders. Southeastern opposed Alphild Herzig's motion to dismiss. However, Alphild Herzig died before the court ruled on the motion. The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the daily sanctions imposed on Alphild Herzig under 2006 contempt orders abated at her death. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the district court had not followed its instructions on whether a portion of the daily sanctions were intended to be money damages to compensate Southeastern or whether the sanctions were a forfeiture. As such, the Court reversed and remanded the district court to make that determination. View "Investors Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig" on Justia Law

Brent Anderson purchased life insurance from Insurer and named three beneficiaries under the policy: (1) his then-wife, Lucia, (2) his parents, and (3) his sister. Brent and Lucia subsequently divorced. Later that year, Mont. Code Ann. 72-2-814 became effective. The statute provides that a divorce revokes "any revocable disposition or appointment of property made by a divorced individual to the individual's former spouse in a governing instrument." Brent died several years later without having changed his designation of Lucia as primary beneficiary under the life insurance policy. Insurer filed an interpleader action to determine the rightful beneficiary under Brent's policy. The district court ruled in favor of Lucia based in part on the fact that section 72-2-814 became effective after Brent and Lucia's divorce. The Supreme Court accepted a certified question from the U.S. court of appeals and answered that section 72-2-814 applies to a divorce that pre-dates the statute's enactment. View "Thrivent Fin. for Lutherans v. Andronescu" on Justia Law

Plaintiff purchased title insurance for a condominium unit she had recently purchased. Plaintiff's neighbor subsequently initiated a lawsuit against Plaintiff alleging that Plaintiff's property was subject to a view easement. Plaintiff tendered the complaint to her title insurance company (Insurer) requesting a defense pursuant to her title insurance policy. Commonwealth denied Plaintiff's request based on certain exclusions in the policy. Plaintiff sued Insurer alleging a breach of contract and requesting a declaratory judgment that Insurer had a duty to defend Plaintiff against her neighbor's complaint. The superior court granted Insurer's motion for summary judgment, finding that the policy specifically excluded the view easement from coverage. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that due to the broad nature of the duty to defend and the law's requirement that insurance-policy interpretation be focused on the insured, Insurer had a duty to defend Plaintiff in the underlying litigation. View "Cox v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law