Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In an insurance coverage dispute, the court was required to determine, under Florida law, what constituted "property damage" under a post-1986 standard form commercial general liability (CGL) policy with products-completed operations hazard (PCOH) coverage. Specifically, whether such a policy issued to a general contractor for damage to the part of the completed project performed by a subcontractor, but not to any other project component, caused by a subcontractor's defective work. In light of Florida precedent addressing the scope of similar CGL policies, the court concluded that the policy provided no coverage in this case. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that the damage at issue was not covered under the policy.

Insured held a life insurance policy issued as part of a federal employee benefit plan. When Insured divorced from his first wife, the divorce decree and property settlement required Insured (1) to maintain the life insurance policy, and (2) to designate the first wife and their grandchildren as equal beneficiaries. Subsequently, Insured remarried, designated his second wife as the sole beneficiary to the life insurance policy, and increased the insurance coverage. Insured and second wife later divorced. When Insured died, the second wife remained the sole beneficiary on the life insurance policy. The first wife and grandchildren filed suit, asserting equitable claims over the life insurance proceeds. The trial court granted summary judgment to the second wife, determining that federal employee benefit law preempted the equitable state law claims and that the policy proceeds accordingly belonged to the second wife. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Act did not preempt the equitable claims and that the first wife and grandchildren were entitled to a constructive trust over at least a portion of the proceeds. Remanded.

Joel and Evelyn Hirschhorn filed suit against their homeowners insurer, Auto-Owners Insurance Company, for breach of contract and bad faith, claiming that Auto-Owners was liable for the total loss of their vacation home. The Hirschhorns alleged that their vacation home became uninhabitable and unsaleable as a result of the accumulation of bat guano between the home's siding and walls. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners, concluding that Auto-Owners' insurance policy's pollution exclusion clause excluded coverage for the Hirschhorns' loss. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the pollution exclusion clause was ambiguous and therefore must be construed in favor of coverage. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court properly dismissed the Hirschhorns' complaint against Auto-Owners, as the pollution exclusion clause excluded coverage for the loss of the Hirschhorns' home that allegedly resulted from the accumulation of bat guano.

In April and June of 2008, Best of the Best Auto Sales, Inc. purchased seven vehicles from Dealers Auto Auction of Idaho and Brasher's Idaho Auto Auction with checks that were returned for insufficient funds. As a result, Dealers and Brasher refused to provide Best of the Best with the titles to the vehicles. Best of the Best then sold the vehicles to Idaho consumers without providing them with titles. Dealers and Brasher filed claims with CNA Surety d/b/a Western Surety Company which acted as a surety for a "$20,000 Vehicle/Vessel Dealer Bond." Best of the Best was the principal. Upon Best of the Best's failure to provide evidence or defenses for Dealers' and Brasher's claims, Western Surety alleged that it lawfully settled those claims in good faith upon the condition that the consumers received their titles, even though they were not based on final judgments. Plaintiff Nick Hestead submitted his claim, which was based on a final judgment. Plaintiff's claim involved fraud and fraudulent representation concerning a separate vehicle that he purchased from Best of the Best that was previously branded a lemon in California. Western Surety responded by asserting that the Dealer Bond was exhausted. Plaintiff contended that the plain meaning of I.C. 49-1610(4) provides that his claim should be given priority because it was submitted thirty days after a final judgment was entered, unlike Dealers' and Brasher's claims. Western Surety asserted that the plain meaning of I.C. 41-1839(3) permits sureties to settle Dealer Bond claims in good faith. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the payments on the surety bond were lawfully made in good faith pursuant to I.C. 49-1610(1) and I.C. 41-1839(3) because Dealers' and Brasher's claims were undisputed and supported by competent evidence.

This declaratory judgment action was brought by Secura, an insurer for Horizon, a subcontractor on a troubled construction project. Horizon's two other insurers, State Auto and Federated later joined. Their dispute with Weitz arose out of a construction project in which Weitz was the general contractor for Metropolitan. After Weitz and Metropolitan brought breach of contract claims against each other, both filed third party complaints against Horizon for defective plumbing. Horizon's insurers defended and settled all claims against it and reimbursed Weitz for its defense of claims against Horizon. Weitz then contended that since it was an "additional insured" on Horizon's policies, the insurers should pay for attorney fees and costs it incurred in defending against Metropolitan's entire counterclaim. The insurers filed this action seeking a final judgment that they not be required to pay the attorney fees and costs. Applying Missouri law, the court rejected Weitz's argument that Metropolitan's counterclaim asserted potentially covered losses under the policies. Therefore, the court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurers because Metropolitan's counterclaim did not state an "occurrence" giving rise to a possibility of coverage under the policies.

During the course of his employment as a police officer for the Town of Abingdon, Kevin Christy suffered injuries from an automobile accident. Christy was insured under an automobile liability insurance policy issued by Mercury Casualty Company (Mercury). Christy submitted a claim to Mercury for payment of the portion of his medical expenses not paid by the Town's workers' compensation carrier. Mercury denied the claim, asserting that an exclusion in the policy barred Christy from receiving any payment for medical expenses because a portion of those expenses had been paid by workers' compensation benefits. Christy filed a warrant in debt against Mercury seeking contract damages. The district court entered judgment in favor of Christy. The circuit court reversed, concluding that, based on the unambiguous language of the exclusion, payment of workers' compensation triggered the exclusion and precluded payment by Mercury. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the language of the exclusion was clear and that the exclusion permitted Mercury to deny coverage for any expenses that would have been subject to workers' compensation coverage without regard to whether all of those expenses were actually paid by the workers' compensation carrier.

Auto Owners Insurance, Inc. (Auto Owners) appealed a circuit court's denial of its motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration in an action against it filed by Blackmon Insurance Agency, Inc. Blackmon and Auto Owners entered into an "agency agreement" authorizing Blackmon to act as an agent for the sale of Auto Owners' insurance in Alabama (the 1995 agreement). A 2005 document entitled "Letter of Instructions" was alleged to be an independent document from the 1995 agreement. Auto Owners contended that the 2005 document was contemplated by and incorporated into the 1995 agreement. The 2005 document contained instructions governing the issuance of a variety of bonds by an agency of Auto Owners. In late 2010, Blackmon filed a complaint in the circuit court seeking a declaratory judgment as to the arbitrability of a dispute between Blackmon and Auto Owners as to which Auto Owners had already initiated arbitration proceedings in its home state of Michigan. Blackmon also alleged that in the Michigan arbitration proceeding Auto Owners based its claims on the 2005 document and a 2009 agreement. Upon review of the matter, the Alabama Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court erred in denying Auto Owners' motion to compel arbitration. The Court therefore reversed that order and remanded the case for the circuit court to grant the motion to compel arbitration and either issue a stay of these proceedings pending arbitration or dismiss the case.

Plaintiffs brought a putative class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001, to recover benefits under long-term disability benefit plans maintained by their former employers. The plans provide for reduction of benefits if the disabled employee also receives benefits under the Social Security Act, as both plaintiffs do. They dispute calculation of the reduction, claiming that the plans do not authorize inclusion in the offset of benefits paid to dependent children. Both plans require offsets for "loss of time disability" benefits. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that children's Social Security disability benefits paid based on a parent's disability are "loss of time disability" benefits under the language of the plans.

Miriam Salazar purchased an insurance policy from United Automobile Insurance Company and El Sol Insurance Agency (collectively, United), rejecting underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage by signing United's waiver. After Salazar was involved in an accident, Lopez sued United, arguing that United must provide her with UIM coverage because the waiver did not provide the required reasonable explanation of UIM coverage. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of United. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the waiver did not contain a reasonable explanation, and Lopez was therefore entitled to UIM coverage of $25,000 under the UIM statute. The court then remanded the case with instructions for the district court to enter judgment in favor of Lopez in the amount of $25,000. The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals (1) did not err in finding that United failed to provide a reasonable explanation of the purpose of UIM coverage and when it would be applicable; but (2) erred in instructing the district court to enter judgment for Lopez in the amount of $25,000. Remanded with instructions to determine the amount of damages Lopez actually sustained.

Joshuah Farrington struck a moose while driving a vehicle loaned to him by Darling's Rent-a-Car, causing damages. Philadelphia Indemnity, Darling's insurer, compensated Darling's pursuant to the property damage provision of its commercial insurance policy. Philadelphia Indemnity, as Darling' subrogee, subsequently filed a complaint against Farrington, asserting that he breached the rental contract by damaging the vehicle. The Business and Consumer Docket entered judgment in Philadelphia Indemnity's favor. Farrington appealed, contending that he was insured by Darling's insurance policy with Philadelphia Indemnity and that Maine's anti-subrogation rule prohibited Philadelphia Indemnity to bring a claim against him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Farrington was not included as an insured within the meaning of the property damage portion of the contract Darling's made with Philadelphia Indemnity.