Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In this appeal the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the parties' indemnity agreement clearly and unequivocally indemnified the Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation (doing business as Community Transit) for losses resulting from its own negligence. Upon review, the Court concluded that the language of the agreement, and in particular language providing that indemnity would not be triggered if losses resulted from the sole negligence of Community Transit, clearly and unequivocally evidenced the parties' intent that the indemnitor, FirstGroup America, Inc. (doing business as First Transit) indemnify Community Transit for losses that resulted from Community Transit's own negligence. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision to the contrary and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Insurer commenced the instant suit against insureds, alleging eight causes of action and requesting a declaration that the insurer's policy provided no coverage or duty to indemnify any amount paid or payable by insured and the plan in an underlying class action suit. At issue was whether the disputed language in an insurance policy extended coverage to alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., by insureds. The court reaffirmed fundamental principles of insurance contract interpretation and held that the plain language of the policy did not cover such acts and, therefore, the Appellate Division correctly held that insurer was entitled to summary judgment and a declaration that was not required to indemnify insured in the manner requested.

This case involved a dispute between plaintiff and other class members (insureds) and Pioneer, which was succeeded in this action by Washington National. The controversy was over the proper interpretation of certain similar insurance contracts under Florida law. Washington National appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the insureds. The court agreed with the district court and held that the policies in question were ambiguous, but concluded that Florida law was unsettled on the proper way to resolve the ambiguity. To establish the proper approach to take under Florida law in interpreting ambiguity, the court certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Florida: In this case, does the Policy's "Automatic Benefit Increase Percentage" apply to the dollar values of the "Lifetime Maximum Benefit Amount" and the "Per Occurrence Maximum Benefit"?

Defendant was injured in 2007 while driving an automobile insured under an ASIC policy that indemnifies against injuries caused by negligent uninsured or underinsured motorists. After determining that the tortfeasors were underinsured, defendant received authorization from ASIC to settle pursuant to Rhode Island's UM/UIM insurance statute, R.I. Gen. Laws 27-7-2.1. Within three months, defendant and the tortfeasors agreed to a settlement of $1 million. ASIC refused to pay under the UM/UIM provisions and sought a declaratory judgment that the claim did not comply with a policy requirement that a claim be made within three years after the date of the accident. The district court granted ASIC judgment on the pleadings. The First Circuit certified to the state supreme court the question of whether the policy limitation is enforceable under state law. The court noted that, by requiring the three-year limitations period to run from the date of the accident, the policy may require some insureds to file suit before their claims are ripe--before the insurer determines whether it will cover the claim. The limitations period may even require some insureds to file suit before it becomes clear that the tortfeasor is underinsured.

Appellant was physically injured as a result of an accident caused by an underinsured motorist. Prior to the accident, Appellant purchased a Dairyland Insurance Policy through his insurance agent, Jonathan Schrack. Although Appellant requested full coverage, the policy did not include underinsured motorist coverage. When the other driver's insurance did not fully cover Appellant's damages, Appellant sued Dairyland and Schrack (Defendants), raising numerous theories as to why he should recover under the Dairyland policy. The district court granted Defendants' motions for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding, inter alia, (1) Wyoming's uninsured motorist statutes unambiguously do not require insurers to provide underinsured motorist liability coverage; (2) Appellant's failure to read the policy was available as a defense to Defendants as to Appellant's negligence and contract claims against them and barred application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel; and (3) the doctrine of reasonable expectations was not available to alter the unambiguous terms of the policy.

Two houseguests suffered serious injuries after their host left her car running overnight in an attached garage and the house filled with carbon monoxide. Plaintiff, the insurer with whom the homeowner had a homeowner's insurance policy, brought a declaratory judgment action against Defendants, the homeowner, the houseguests, and the homeowner's automobile insurer, seeking a declaration that the homeowner's policy did not cover the injuries suffered by the houseguests. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff, finding that the policy did not cover the injuries because they fell within the policy exclusion for injuries arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the injuries suffered by the houseguests fell under the policy's motor vehicle exclusion.

Plaintiff insured defendants. Defendant Schilli is a freight broker that arranges freight and provides risk management services for claims against other defendants, trucking companies, but does not own tractor-trailers or employ drivers. Plaintiff advanced funds to defend or settle claims against defendants for accidents that occurred during the duration of the policy. The policy had a coverage limit of $1,000,000 for each accident and a $100,000 basket deductible per occurrence and provides that "[y]ou agree to repay us up to this deductible amount for all damages caused by any one accident, as soon as we notify you of the judgment or settlement." Schilli's name and address are included in the definition of "you;" the other companies are named as insureds. Plaintiff sought reimbursement for amounts, up to the $100,000 deductible, that it advanced in defending and settling each case. Schilli refused to pay. In granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff, the district court stated that the policy unambiguously defines "you" as all of the corporations. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding the policy ambiguous as to the nature of defendants' liability for the deductible.

Defendant-Appellant Nodak Mutual Insurance Company appealed from a judgment awarding Plaintiff-Appellee Barry Myaer $34,933.24 plus interest in his breach of contract action against Nodak. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in ruling Plaintiff was entitled to deferred commissions payable to him in December 2009, but did err in ruling those commissions could exceed 10 percent under the terms of the parties' contract.

The Supreme Court consolidated "Matsyuk v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company" and "Weismann v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois" for the purpose of clarifying the pro rata sharing rule announced in several precedential cases, including "Mahler v. Szucs" (957 P.2d 632). The rule is based on the "common fund" exception to the "American rule" on attorney fees. The rule requires personal injury protection (PIP) insurers to share pro rata in the attorney fees incurred by injured persons when the PIP insurer wins at trial. Plaintiffs in these cases recovered PIP funds as insureds under policies held by the tortfeasors. They incurred attorney fees arising from the recovery of the liability insurance. The insurance companies attempted to offset the funds expended under PIP policies by reducing plaintiffs' award under the tortfeasors' liability insurance. The Court of Appeals held that neither plaintiff was entitled to recoup a pro rata share of attorney fees. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, holding that the pro rata fee sharing rule applied in this context.

In 2005, Plaintiff Marlene Harris purchased a car from Defendant David Stanley Chevrolet. Her purchase agreement contained an arbitration provision that applied to any "controversy, claim or dispute between the Purchaser and the Dealer arising out of, or related to this sale or transaction, including but not limited to, any and all issues or disputes arising as a result of this sale or transaction whether said issues arise prior to, during or subsequent to the sale or attempted sale of a vehicle." A few days after executing the purchase agreement, Plaintiff entered into a GAP insurance contract sold to her by an employee of the dealership (acting as an agent of the insurance company). In 2009, the car was a total loss. The GAP insurance company refused to pay the total difference between the insurance proceeds and the amount owed on the car, and Plaintiff sued to compel the GAP coverage. Plaintiff maintained that the purchase of the vehicle and the purchase of the policy were separate transactions, and that the arbitration clause of the purchase contract was inapplicable to the underpayment of coverage (GAP coverage). She argued no claim was brought against the GAP insurance company which was related to the sale or financing of the vehicle, conceding the arbitration clause would have applied to claims related to the sale or financing issues. After reviewing the motions of the parties, the trial court denied Defendant's Motion to Compel arbitration without an evidentiary hearing. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the two contracts involved two separate subjects, executed on different dates, and the arbitration clause in the purchase agreement did not mention or reference GAP insurance or any relationship between the two contracts. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the evidentiary hearing and ruling that the arbitration clause did not apply as a matter of law.