Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Siloam Springs Hotel, LLC operated a Hampton Inn hotel in Siloam Springs, Arkansas. It purchased a general liability insurance policy from Century Surety Company covering the Hampton Inn for the period of November 13, 2012, through November 13, 2013. Siloam Springs purchased the Commercial Lines Policy through Century Surety's agent, RCI Insurance Group of Claremore, Oklahoma. On January 21, 2013, several guests at the Hampton Inn suffered bodily injury due to a sudden, accidental leak of carbon monoxide from the heating element of an indoor swimming pool. Siloam Springs sought coverage under the Commercial Lines Policy. Century Surety denied coverage, relying on an exclusion set out in the Commercial Lines Policy. That provision (the "Indoor Air Exclusion") excluded from coverage "[b]odily injury' . . . arising out of, caused by, or alleging to be contributed to in any way by any toxic, hazardous, noxious, irritating, pathogenic or allergen qualities or characteristics of indoor air regardless of cause." After Century Surety removed the case to federal court, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In its motion, Century Surety asserted that because the insurance contract was to be performed in Arkansas, Oklahoma choice-of-law rules made Arkansas law applicable. It further argued that the Indoor Air Exclusion unambiguously excluded coverage for the carbon-monoxide based injuries to the guests at the Hampton Inn. For its part, Siloam Springs "decline[d] to contest" Century Surety's assertion that Arkansas law applied because, it asserted, "Arkansas law does not differ from Oklahoma law in any way material to [the] coverage dispute." As to the merits, Siloam Springs asserted the Indoor Air Exclusion was ambiguous and, as such, had to be construed in favor of coverage. Without definitively resolving whether Oklahoma or Arkansas law applied, but relying on precedent from Arkansas, the district court granted summary judgment to Century Surety. The issue this case presented for the Tenth Circuit's review called for the Court to determine the citizenship, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, of a limited liability company ("LLC"). Because the materials before the Court did not demonstrate that complete diversity of citizenship existed at the time of the filing of the complaint, the matter was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "Siloam Springs Hotel v. Century Surety Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Ronald Lee Cline was severely injured when his motorcycle collided with a turning car driven by a teenager with a provisional license. He settled with the driver and the driver’s parents for their $100,000 insurance policy limit. Cline executed a release that released the driver and his parents “and any other person, corporation, association, or partnership responsible in any manner or degree” for the accident. Cline subsequently sued defendant Berniece Delores Homuth, the driver’s grandmother and the sole adult in the car with him at the time of the collision, for negligent supervision. Homuth raised the release as an affirmative defense. She moved for summary judgment; the trial court denied the motion. A court trial followed, centering on the validity of the release and whether Homuth was an intended third party beneficiary of the release. Cline appealed the judgment in favor of Homuth, arguing the extrinsic evidence demonstrated that Homuth was not an intended beneficiary of the release. The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding that Cline failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter Homuth’s showing that she was an intended beneficiary of the release. View "Cline v. Homuth" on Justia Law

The Torres own land and a house in Mantoloking, New Jersey, that was covered by a National Flood Insurance Program Dwelling Form Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) issued by Liberty under the National Flood Insurance Act. The National Flood Insurance Program “is underwritten by the United States Treasury in order to provide flood insurance below actuarial rates.” The Torres’ property sustained substantial damage during Hurricane Sandy, and they submitted claims under the SFIP for that damage to Liberty. Liberty administered a total payment1 to the Torres of $235,751.68, which included the cost of removing debris from their house. The Torres sought an additional payment of $15,520 for the cost of removing sand and other debris deposited on their land in front of and behind their house. Liberty denied that claim on the ground that the SFIP does not cover it. The Third Circuit affirmed judgment in Liberty’s favor. The SFIP provides coverage for structures and other items of property but not for an entire parcel of land; the provision requiring Liberty to pay for removal of non-owned debris that is “on or in insured property” does not apply to expenses incurred in removing non-owned debris from land outside the home. View "Torre v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co." on Justia Law

First State Insurance Company and New England Reinsurance Corporation (collectively, First State) entered into several reinsurance and retrocession agreements with a reinsurer, National Casualty Company (National). First State demanded arbitration under eight of these agreements to resolve disputes about billing disputes and the interpretation of certain contract provisions relating to payment of claims. The arbitrators handed down a contract interpretation award that established a payment protocol under the agreements. First State filed a petition pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act to confirm the contract interpretation award, and National filed a cross-petition to vacate the award. A federal district court summarily confirmed both the contract interpretation award and the final arbitration award. After noting that “a federal court’s authority to defenestrate an arbitration award is extremely limited,” the First Circuit affirmed, holding that the arbitrators “even arguably” construed the underlying agreements and, thus, acted within the scope of their contractually delineated powers in confirming the contract interpretation award. View "First State Ins. Co. v. Nat’l Cas. Co." on Justia Law

A “viatical” or “life settlement” permits an insured to sell his life insurance policy. Federal tax and some state laws have been amended to accommodate the practice. In 2006, an agent persuaded Close, age 74, to apply for a $5 million life insurance policy. As submitted to PHL, his application falsely stated Close’s net worth and income, and failed to disclose his conviction for receiving illegal kickbacks. Under the agent’s guidance, Close falsely stated his net worth to obtain a two-year, $300,225 premium financing loan from CFC, a PHL-approved funding source. The policy was pledged as collateral; Close personally guaranteed 25 percent of the loan, believing that the policy would be worth $1.3 million in two-years, when it became “incontestable” under Minn. Stat. 61A.03.1(c) and that he would be able to sell it for $500,000. PHL conducted minimal investigation and received premiums of $272,025; CFC received $14,200 in fees; and the agent and a CFC employee split substantial commissions. In 2009, BNC explained Close’s options for repayment: refinancing, selling, or relinquishing the policy to the lender. The secondary market had crashed. Close surrendered the policy. When Close died in 2011, investigation revealed the fraudulent misrepresentations, but rescission was foreclosed by the incontestability statute. PHL sought a declaratory judgment that the policy was void as contrary to public policy for lack of an insurable interest. The district court agreed. The Eighth Circuit reversed, stating that permitting insurers to resist paying based on evidence that an insured used premium financing and planned to sell, is “not a result the Supreme Court of Minnesota would find acceptable in exercising its ‘delicate and undefined power’ to declare a contract void. View "PHL Variable Ins. Co. v. Bank of Utah" on Justia Law

In purchasing a vehicle, Robin Hinkle and her former husband purchased GAP Insurance issued by Safe-Guard Products International, LLC (Safe-Guard). The Hinkles were told that the GAP Insurance would relieve them of payment owed on the vehicle if it was declared a total loss as a result of an accident and more was owed for the vehicle than the value assigned to it at the time it was totaled. Robin was later involved in an accident that resulted in her vehicle being declared a total loss. To pay off the balance owed on the vehicle, Robin submitted a claim to Safe-Guard under the GAP Insurance. Safe-Guard denied coverage. Robin subsequently filed this action against Safe-Guard, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. Robin filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the GAP Insurance constituted insurance under state law for purposes of this litigation. The circuit court granted the motion. Thereafter, Safe-Guard initiated the instant proceeding seeking a writ of prohibition to preclude enforcement of the partial summary judgment order. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Safe-Guard’s GAP Insurance constituted insurance under the laws of West Virginia. View "State ex rel. Safe-Guard Prods. Int’l LLC v. Hon. Miki Thompson" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant First Health Settlement Class appealed a superior court order that granted partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee Chartis Specialty Insurance Company. This was one of a number of class action cases filed against First Health and others in the State of Louisiana. In those actions, medical service providers alleged that First Health violated notice provisions contained in a Louisiana statute known as the Preferred Provider Organizations Act. First Health ultimately entered into a settlement in which it resolved all of the Louisiana litigation. Chartis was First Health's errors and omissions insurance insurer. The policy had a number of exclusions, one of which was an exclusion for "penalties." The issue this case presented for the Delaware Supreme Court's review was whether the amount that First Health paid to settle the Louisiana litigation was a "penalty," and, therefore, not a covered loss under the insurance policy. The superior court concluded that the amount paid was a "penalty." The Delaware court disagreed, concluding that it was not a "penalty," and that the policy's exclusion for "penalties" did not apply. View "The First Health Settlement Class v. Chartis Speciality Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant CorVel Corporation appealed a superior court order that granted partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee Homeland Insurance Company of New York. This was one of a number of class action cases filed against CorVel and others in the State of Louisiana. In those actions, medical service providers alleged that CorVel violated notice provisions contained in a Louisiana statute known as the Preferred Provider Organizations Act. CorVel ultimately entered into a settlement in which it resolved all of the Louisiana litigation. Homeland was CorVel's errors and omissions insurance insurer. The policy had a number of exclusions, one of which was an exclusion for "penalties." The issue this case presented for the Delaware Supreme Court's review was whether the amount that CorVel paid to settle the Louisiana litigation was a "penalty," and, therefore, not a covered loss under the insurance policy. The superior court concluded that the amount paid was a "penalty." The Delaware court disagreed, concluding that it was not a "penalty," and that the policy's exclusion for "penalties" did not apply. View "Corvel Corporation v. Homeland Insurance Company of New York" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question of Florida law to the Florida Supreme Court. Two cases before the Eleventh Circuit involved three Stranger-Originated Life Insurance (STOLI policies). Wells Fargo, N.A., the present owner of a STOLI policy on the life of Arlene Berger, appealed a district court's final judgment, entered in favor of Pruco Life Insurance Company, invalidating this policy. Regarding the second appeal, Pruco appealed a different district court's order dismissing its claim seeking the invalidation of two STOLI policies issued on the life of Rosalind Guild. The insurance company contended that, as with most STOLI policies, there was no such interest when these policies were issued, which the company says entitled it to have the policies declared void. Undermining the insurance company's argument, however, was another Florida statute requiring all insurance policies to include a clause providing that the policy is incontestable after it has been "in force" for two years. The policies at issue here contained such a clause, and the insurance company clearly failed to contest the policies within that two-year window. Thus, the question before the Eleventh Circuit was which statute controlled. Federal district courts have disagreed when asked how to interpret Florida law in this regard. View "Pruco Life Insurance Company v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question of Colorado law to the Colorado Supreme Court. An insurer issued a policy that provided directors and officers of a company liability coverage. The policy required the insured to give prompt notice of a claim, specifically, notice "as soon as practicable" after learning of the claim. The policy also required the insured to give notice of the claim by a date certain (not later than 60 days after the expiration of the policy). Near the end of the one-year policy, a company officer was sued for alleged misrepresentations he made during a merger. Unaware of the insurance policy, the officer defended himself against the suit. When he learned of the policy, approximately sixteen months after the policy had expired, he contacted the insurer. The underlying suit was settled. The officer then sued the insurer for denying coverage under the policy. The insurer removed the case to the federal district court, and then moved to dismiss on grounds that the officer's claim was untimely. The issue of Colorado law before the Tenth Circuit centered on the "notice-prejudice" rule to claims-made insurance policies: (1) whether the notice-prejudice rule applied to claims-made liability policies in general; and (2) if so, whether the rule applied to both types of notice requirements in those policies. The Colorado Court answered the certified questions more narrowly than originally presented because the parties agreed that the prompt notice requirement of the claims-made policy in this case was not at issue. The Colorado Court's analysis was restricted to the date-certain notice requirement. The Court held that the notice-prejudice rule did not apply to date-certain notice requirement in a claims-made insurance policy. In a claims-made policy, the date-certain notice defines the scope of coverage ("to excuse late notice in violation of such a requirement would rewrite a fundamental term of the insurance contract.") The Court reframed the certified questions as a single question: whether the notice-prejudice rule applies to the date-certain notice requirement of claims-made policies, to which the Colorado Court answered in the negative. View "Craft v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co." on Justia Law