Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The case involves a dispute between Century Surety Company, acting as a subrogee of Triangle Engineering, L.P., and Colgate Operating, L.L.C. over the interpretation of a Master Services/Sales Agreement (MSA) and the insurance policies of the parties. Colgate, an oil well operator, and Triangle, an oilfield consultancy, entered into the MSA in April 2017, which included mutual indemnity provisions supported by liability insurance. Both parties purchased insurance, but Colgate's coverage was significantly higher than Triangle's. Following an accident involving a worker, Century, as Triangle’s subrogee, sought reimbursement from Colgate for a settlement payment.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Colgate. The court rejected affidavits from Colgate’s vice president and Triangle’s sole member, which were intended to clarify the parties' intentions at the time of the MSA signing. The district court concluded that the MSA did not specify a ceiling for insurance coverage and applied the "lowest common denominator rule" from the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Ken Petroleum Corp. v. Questor Drilling Corp., limiting Colgate’s indemnity obligation to $6 million, the amount of coverage Triangle had purchased.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s judgment but on different grounds. The appellate court agreed that the district court correctly excluded the extrinsic evidence but found that the MSA itself provided both a floor and a ceiling of $5 million for mutual indemnity coverage. The court held that Colgate’s insurance policies did not alter this limit and that Colgate was not liable to Century beyond the $5 million specified in the MSA. Thus, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of Colgate. View "Century Surety Co. v. Colgate Operating" on Justia Law

On August 10, 2020, a derecho caused significant damage to the plaintiffs' property in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The plaintiffs filed a claim with their insurer, State Farm, which initially paid $2,297.26 for the damage. After further submissions and inspections, State Farm increased the payment by $3,822.68. The plaintiffs' contractor estimated the repair costs at $21,537.45, but State Farm disagreed, leading to further disputes and inspections. Eventually, the plaintiffs requested an appraisal, which set the actual cash value (ACV) at $16,155.48 and the replacement cost value (RCV) at $21,069.59. State Farm paid the plaintiffs the difference between the initial payments and the new ACV but required documentation of repairs for the RCV.The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in state court for breach of contract and bad faith, which was removed to federal court. The district court granted summary judgment to State Farm, holding that the insurer had not breached the contract because it had paid the ACV and the plaintiffs had not completed repairs within the two-year policy deadline to claim the RCV. The court also found that State Farm had an objectively reasonable basis for its payment decisions, negating the bad-faith claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that State Farm did not breach the contract as the plaintiffs failed to complete repairs within the required two-year period. The court also held that State Farm had a reasonable basis for its initial payment decisions and did not act in bad faith. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to further payments under the policy and that State Farm's actions were justified. View "Henderson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co." on Justia Law

A fire damaged a malt beverage store owned by A Maxon Company, LLC (AMC). Acuity Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment to determine coverage under an insurance policy listing Greg and Tammy Weatherspoon as additional loss payees. The Weatherspoons counterclaimed for breach of contract. The circuit court granted Acuity’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on the Weatherspoons’ counterclaim, determining that the insurance policy terms prevented the Weatherspoons from recovering damages unless AMC successfully asserted a claim. The jury found that AMC principal, Russel Maxon, had intentionally started the fire, excluding coverage under AMC’s policy. The Weatherspoons appealed.The Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Corson County, South Dakota, initially denied the Weatherspoons’ motion for summary judgment, ruling that the insurance contract was unambiguous and that the Weatherspoons’ claim was dependent on AMC’s claim. The court also denied Acuity’s motion for summary judgment, finding that there were factual disputes suitable for a jury. At trial, the court granted Acuity’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, concluding that the Weatherspoons could not recover under the policy because AMC’s claim was excluded due to Russel’s intentional act.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court’s decision. The court held that the insurance policy’s Loss Payable Clause only allowed the Weatherspoons to collect if AMC could collect, and since the jury found that Russel intentionally started the fire, AMC was precluded from recovering. The court also found no abuse of discretion in admitting expert testimony from Special Agent Derek Hill and allowing the impeachment of Tracy Maxon with prior inconsistent statements. The court concluded that the Weatherspoons’ arguments regarding ambiguity and third-party beneficiary status were unavailing. View "Acuity Insurance V. A Maxon Company" on Justia Law

American Building Innovation LP (ABI) was hired by Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC (Balfour Beatty) as a subcontractor for a school construction project. ABI had a workers’ compensation insurance policy when it began work, but the policy was canceled due to ABI’s refusal to pay outstanding premiums from a previous policy. This cancellation led to the automatic suspension of ABI’s contractor’s license. Despite knowing it was unlicensed and uninsured, ABI continued working on the project.The Superior Court of Orange County found that ABI was not duly licensed at all times during the performance of its work, as required by California law. ABI’s license was suspended because it failed to maintain workers’ compensation insurance. ABI later settled its premium dispute and had the policy retroactively reinstated, but the court found this retroactive reinstatement meaningless because it occurred long after the statute of limitations for any workers’ compensation claims had expired. The court ruled that ABI could not maintain its action to recover compensation for its work due to its lack of proper licensure.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The court held that ABI was not entitled to retroactive reinstatement of its license because the failure to maintain workers’ compensation insurance was not due to circumstances beyond ABI’s control. ABI’s decision not to pay the premiums and its false representations to the Contractors’ State License Board were within its control. Consequently, ABI was barred from bringing or maintaining the action under section 7031 of the Business and Professions Code. The court also affirmed the award of attorney fees to Balfour Beatty under the subcontract’s prevailing party attorney fee provision. View "American Building Innovations v. Balfour Beatty Construction" on Justia Law

Malcolm H. Wiener, the plaintiff, purchased three life insurance policies from AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company in 1986. Over the years, Wiener's policies lapsed multiple times due to insufficient funds, but he managed to reinstate them each time. In 2013, the policies lapsed again, and AXA terminated them after Wiener failed to make the necessary payments within the grace period. Wiener claimed that AXA and his insurance agent, David Hungerford, caused the lapse by not sending premium notices and by changing the mailing address without his authorization. He also alleged that AXA wrongfully denied his application to reinstate the policies.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of AXA and Hungerford on all claims. The court found that AXA was not obligated to send premium notices after the policies lapsed and that Wiener had waived any objection to the address change by acquiescing for nearly five years. The court also concluded that Hungerford had no duty to notify Wiener of the lapse. Regarding the reinstatement claim, the court ruled that AXA's denial was not arbitrary and capricious, as it was based on Wiener’s low serum albumin levels, which were consistent with AXA’s underwriting guidelines.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment on the termination claims, agreeing that Wiener could not show that AXA’s failure to send premium notices caused the policies to lapse and that he had waived any objection to the address change. However, the appellate court vacated the summary judgment on the reinstatement claim, finding that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding the actual reasons for AXA’s denial and whether those reasons were arbitrary. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the reinstatement claim. View "Wiener v. AXA Equitable Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Cynthia Roberge, a State of Rhode Island employee, was involved in a car accident with an underinsured motorist while driving her personal vehicle during the course of her employment. She sought uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage under the State's insurance policy issued by Travelers Property Casualty Company of America. Travelers denied her claim, stating that she was not entitled to UM/UIM coverage because she was not driving a "covered auto" as defined by the policy.Roberge filed a lawsuit in Providence County Superior Court, asserting claims for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, and bad faith. Travelers removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Travelers, concluding that Roberge was not entitled to UM/UIM coverage under the policy's terms and that neither the Rhode Island Supreme Court's decision in Martinelli v. Travelers Insurance Companies nor the Rhode Island Uninsured Motorist Statute required such coverage.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that the policy's language clearly excluded Roberge from UM/UIM coverage because she was not driving a "covered auto." However, the court found that the case raised unresolved questions of Rhode Island insurance law, particularly regarding the applicability of the Martinelli exception and the requirements of the Rhode Island Uninsured Motorist Statute. The First Circuit decided to certify two questions to the Rhode Island Supreme Court: whether an employee must be considered a named insured under an employer's auto insurance policy when operating a personal vehicle in the scope of employment, and whether it violates Rhode Island law and public policy for an employer's policy to provide liability but not UM/UIM coverage to employees in such circumstances. The case was stayed pending the Rhode Island Supreme Court's response. View "Roberge v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America" on Justia Law

AXIS Insurance Company sought indemnification from American Specialty Insurance & Risk Services for claims AXIS settled, based on a contract between the two parties. The contract did not require AXIS to offer American Specialty the choice to approve the settlement or assume the defense. However, American Specialty argued that Indiana law imposed such an obligation. The district court agreed with American Specialty and granted summary judgment in its favor.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana found that AXIS's settlement payment was voluntary because AXIS did not give American Specialty the opportunity to approve the settlement or assume the defense. The court concluded that AXIS had to show actual liability on the underlying claim to seek indemnification, which AXIS could not do. Therefore, the district court ruled that American Specialty had no duty to indemnify AXIS for the settlement payment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the contract did not require AXIS to tender the defense to American Specialty before settling claims. The court also found that Indiana law does not imply such a requirement in indemnification agreements. The Seventh Circuit concluded that AXIS was not obliged to offer American Specialty the opportunity to approve the settlement or assume the defense as a condition precedent to indemnification. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Axis Insurance Company v. American Specialty Insurance & Risk Services" on Justia Law

Constantin, an accounting firm, performed an audit for Schratter Foods Incorporated, a food services company. The audit allegedly went wrong, leading to liability. Constantin had a professional services insurance policy from Chubb Insurance Company of New Jersey, which covered services directed toward expertise in banking finance, accounting, risk and systems analysis, design and implementation, asset recovery, and strategy planning for financial institutions. Constantin assigned its rights under the policy to ECB USA, Inc., Atlantic Ventures Corp., and G.I.E. C2B (collectively, the ECB parties).The ECB parties sued Chubb in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, seeking to enforce Constantin’s assigned contractual rights, alleging a breach of contract based on Chubb’s duty to defend or indemnify in the earlier lawsuit. The district court granted summary judgment to Chubb, ruling that the insurance policy did not cover the audit because it was not performed for a financial institution. The court also granted reformation of the 2017–18 contract to include Constantin as a named insured.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the phrase “for financial institutions” in the insurance policy modified all the terms in the list, including “accounting.” The court applied the series-qualifier canon of interpretation, which suggests that a postpositive modifier like “for financial institutions” modifies all the terms in a list of parallel items. The court found that the surrounding language of the policy supported this interpretation. The court rejected ECB’s arguments based on the last-antecedent canon and contra proferentem, concluding that the policy unambiguously required the services to be for financial institutions. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Chubb. View "ECB USA, Inc. v. Chubb Insurance Company of New Jersey" on Justia Law

Daniel Graff purchased a life insurance policy from Brighthouse Life Insurance Company for his father, with Graff as the beneficiary. Over the years, Graff paid more in premiums than the policy's death benefit. He sued Brighthouse, claiming the policy violated Minnesota's Readability of Insurance Policies Act (RIPA) and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and also sought recovery for unjust enrichment. Brighthouse removed the case to federal court, which dismissed Graff's claims for failing to state a claim.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Graff's complaint with prejudice. The court found that the RIPA did not provide a private cause of action, the implied-covenant claim was untimely, and Graff could not recover under unjust enrichment because a valid contract governed the parties' relationship.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that the RIPA does not create a private cause of action, as enforcement authority is vested exclusively in the Minnesota Commissioner of Commerce. The court also determined that Graff's implied-covenant claim could not proceed because it was based on a statute that does not provide a private remedy. Lastly, the court upheld the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, noting that equitable remedies are unavailable when a valid contract governs the parties' rights, and Brighthouse was entitled to the premiums under the policy. View "Daniel Graff v. Brighthouse Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Covil Corporation, through its receiver, sued Pennsylvania National Mutual Insurance Company for breaching their insurance contract by not contributing to a settlement in an asbestos case. David Rollins had sued Covil and others, alleging negligent asbestos exposure caused his mesothelioma. Penn National insured Covil during part of the exposure period. Covil settled the case and sought $50,000 from Penn National, which the insurer refused to pay.The circuit court granted summary judgment for Covil, requiring Penn National to indemnify Covil for the settlement. The court rejected Penn National's arguments about untimely notice, premature summary judgment, and policy exclusions. The court of appeals affirmed the decision.The South Carolina Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the court of appeals' decision with modifications. The court held that the notice-prejudice rule did not apply because the underlying plaintiff, Rollins, had already been fully compensated. The court also found that Covil's untimely notice was not a material breach of the insurance contract, as Covil's interests were adequately protected by other insurers' counsel. Additionally, the court ruled that Penn National did not waive its right to timely notice by attending mediation.The court further held that the policy's "Products Hazard" and "Completed Operations Hazard" exclusions did not apply. The Products Hazard exclusion was inapplicable because Covil's liability was based on installation, not supplying asbestos. The Completed Operations Hazard exclusion did not apply because Rollins's exposure occurred before Covil's work was completed. Thus, the court affirmed the lower court's summary judgment in favor of Covil. View "Covil Corporation v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company" on Justia Law