Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Acumen, the underwriter, filed suit against General Security, the reinsurer, for breach of a reinsurance underwriting agreement. The district court granted partial summary judgment for General Security, certified the judgment under Rule 54(b), and closed the case. The court dismissed Acumen's appeal, holding that the district court's entry of the Rule 54(b) order and judgment was erroneous because the district court did not address separate claims for relief. In the absence of a final judgment on a claim or an otherwise reviewable order, the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal.View "Acumen Re Mgmt. Corp. v. General Security Nat. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Scottsdale for breach of its insurance contract and tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. At issue was whether plaintiffs can pursue a claim for preforeclosure damage to the property at issue deliberately caused by the purchaser under an insurance policy issued by Scottsdale containing a mortgage coverage provision. The court concluded that plaintiffs' full faith and credit bid at the foreclosure sale under the second deed of trust precluded them from making a claim on the insurance proceeds. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that a defense offer to compromise under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.View "Najah v. Scottsdale Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In 2010, Baldwin Mutual Insurance Company (BMIC) filed an "Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Complaint for Declaratory Judgment" against 122 individuals who were insured under various insurance policies issued by BMIC. According to the complaint, the insureds, through their legal counsel, had sent a letter requesting BMIC provide copies of the policy file for each of the insureds, and the letter accused BMIC of "bad faith" as to its treatment of the insureds. According to BMIC's complaint, the various insurance policies at issue provided that BMIC or an insured could invoke an appraisal process if BMIC and the insured could not reach an agreement as to the amount of compensation due the insured for a loss covered under the insured's policy. BMIC asked that the restraining order "enjoin[] the [insureds] from engaging in the appraisal process and stay[] the time in which [BMIC] has to identify an appraiser or otherwise participate in said process." Also, BMIC asserted that "it will be caused immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage should it be required to engage in the appraisal process demanded prior to determining whether [the insureds] separately and severally are entitled to invoke the appraisal process." BMIC appealed the Circuit Court's order modifying a previous order granting BMIC injunctive relief. Based on its review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded the circuit court erred by ordering BMIC to engage in the appraisal process before the insureds satisfied their respective post-loss obligations and before BMIC had sufficient information on which it could decide whether it disagreed with the respective claims of the insureds. Accordingly, the Court reversed the circuit court and remanded this matter for further proceedings. View "Baldwin Mutual Insurance Company v. Adair et al. " on Justia Law

Mercury Casualty Company filed an action seeking declaratory relief regarding its obligation to students Hung Chu and his roommate Tu Pham. Mercury issued an automobile policy to Chu insuring his 1995 Honda Accord. Chu was driving, and Pham was a passenger, when Chu collided with a vehicle driven by Krystal Nguyen Hoang. Pham filed a personal injury action against Chu and Hoang and obtained a $333,300 judgment against Chu. Mercury sought a judicial determination confirming Mercury’s decision Chu’s policy excluded coverage for Pham’s judgment under a “resident exclusion.” Mercury also sought an order requiring Chu to reimburse Mercury the fees and costs it incurred in defending him against Pham’s lawsuit. Chu cross-complained against Mercury for breach of contract, bad faith, and general negligence. Mercury prevailed on the issue of whether the policy provided coverage for Pham’s judgment. The court determined Mercury had no duty to indemnify Chu with respect to the judgment. It granted Mercury’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (JOP) on Chu’s cross-complaint but determined Mercury could not seek reimbursement of its attorney fees and costs in defending Chu because such damages were not sought in the JOP. Both parties appealed. Chu and Pham appealed the determination that Mercury’s policy excluded coverage for Pham’s personal injury lawsuit against Chu. Mercury appealed the court’s ruling Chu was not required to reimburse Mercury for the defense fees and costs. After its review of the record, the Court of Appeal reversed, concluding the policy provision excluding Pham from coverage was an overbroad expansion of the statutorily permitted exclusion and was also contrary to public policy. Based on this ruling, the Court did not address the issue raised in Mercury’s cross-appeal regarding its entitlement to defense costs and fees.View "Mercury Casualty v. Chu" on Justia Law

The Georgia Department of Corrections (GDOC) entered into a construction contract with Lewis Walker Roofing (Walker Roofing) to re-roof several buildings at Valdosta State Prison. The Contract contained two “no assignment” clauses, and as a prerequisite to contracting with GDOC, Walker Roofing was required to obtain payment and performance bonds. It obtained such payment and performance bonds from Developers Surety and Indemnity Company. Walker Roofing did not complete its work within the time frame required by the Contract, and GDOC declared Walker Roofing in default. Developers Surety did not notify GDOC within 25 days of receipt of GDOC's notice of default regarding whether it would remedy the default or perform the contract. However, approximately three months after the declaration of default, Developers Surety gave GDOC the option of entering into a contract with another company for the completion of the work. GDOC then contracted with that company to finish the project. Under the payment and performance bonds and prior to Walker Roofing's default, Developers Surety had provided financial assistance to Walker Roofing. Developers Surety filed suit against GDOC for breach of contract and for a declaratory judgment that it had no obligation under the payment and performance bond it issued to Walker Roofing on behalf of GDOC. GDOC filed a counterclaim for breach of contract. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the trial court determined that Developers Surety's claims were not barred by sovereign immunity and that GDOC had breached the construction contract as a matter of law. It concluded that GDOC waived its sovereign immunity by entering into the contract with Walker Roofing, and that the doctrine of equitable subrogation gave Developers Surety the ability to file suit against GDOC once it incurred liability and paid the obligations of its principal under the bond. Consequently, the trial court granted summary judgment to Developers Surety and denied it to GDOC; in the same order, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Developers Surety in the amount equal to the "financial assistance" Developers Surety provided to Walker Roofing. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals to consider whether the State’s sovereign immunity was waived for the claim Developers Surety made on its contract with the State. The Supreme Court found that immunity was indeed waived in this instance, and accordingly, it affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. View "Georgia Dept. of Corrections v. Developers Surety & Indemnity Co." on Justia Law

Mid-Continent Casualty Company brought a declaratory judgment action to settle an issue with its commercial commercial general liability (CGL) policy issued to Pennant Service Company. In 2001, True Oil Company, an owner and operator of oil and gas wells, entered into a master service contract (MSC) with Pennant for work on a well in Wyoming. The MSC included a provision whereby Pennant agreed to indemnify True Oil resulting from either Pennant or True Oil's negligence. In July 2001, Christopher Van Norman, a Pennant employee, was injured in an accident at True Oil's well. Van Norman sued True Oil in Wyoming state court for negligence. In accordance with the MSC's indemnity provision, counsel for True Oil wrote to Pennant requesting indemnification for its defense costs, attorney fees, and any award that Van Norman might recover against it. Mid-Continent refused to defend or indemnify True Oil based on Wyoming's Anti-Indemnity Statute, which invalidates agreements related to oil or gas wells that "indemnify the indemnitee against loss or liability for damages for . . . bodily injury to persons." In May 2002, True Oil brought a federal action against Mid-Continent for declaratory relief, breach of contract (CGL policy), and other related claims. In February 2005, the district court granted Mid-Continent summary judgment, determining that the MSC's indemnity provision, when invoked with respect to claims of the indemnitee's own negligence was unenforceable as a matter of public policy. The court held that Mid-Continent was not required to defend or indemnify True Oil in the underlying suit as it then existed because "where an indemnification provision in a MSC is void and unenforceable, the insurer never actually assumed any of the indemnitee's liabilities under the policy." The district court granted summary judgment to True Oil, determining Mid-Continent breached its duty to defend and indemnify True Oil. As damages, the court awarded True Oil the amount it paid to settle the underlying suit and the attorney fees and costs incurred in defending itself. Mid-Continent appealed the district court's judgment. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed.View "Mid-Continent v. True Oil Company" on Justia Law

Manuel Lainez had been independently driving commercial vehicles for eight and a half years. He owned his own truck and his own business, Lainez Trucking. He purchased a trucker’s liability policy from Scottsdale Indemnity Company with a $1 million liability limit. Lainez entered into a motor carrier agreement with Western Transportation Services. Western did not own tractors or trailers, but contracted with owner/operators or drivers. The agreement provided that Lainez was an independent contractor and was responsible for all costs and expenses incidental to the performance of transportation services. He agreed to maintain liability insurance and to name Western Transport as an additional insured. Western Transport, through the California Automobile Assigned Risk Plan (CAARP), purchased a commercial assigned risk policy from National Continental Insurance Company (NCI), which stated "'Named Insured’s Business: 1 Trucker for Hire-Excess'" and named Lainez as a driver. It did not list, describe, or rate any vehicle. It was rated on an excess cost of hire basis at a premium that was 4 to 10 percent of the cost of a policy rated on a primary cost of hire basis. The issue this case presented for the Court of Appeal's review was whether the two insurance companies were coprimary insurers or whether NCI was an excess insurer for an underlying fatality involving Lainez. The trial court granted NCI’s motion for a summary judgment, concluding that Scottsdale was the primary insurer pursuant to California Insurance Code section 11580.9, subdivisions (d) and (h). The Court of Appeal agreed that Scottsdale was the primary insurer and NCI was the excess insurer and affirmed the judgment. View "Scottsdale Indemnity v. National Continental Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Rose’s Bidwell, Ohio home was insured by State Farm. Rose also had a Personal Articles Policy that covered two Rolex watches. In 2009, a fire destroyed the house. Later that day, Rose made a claim of $696,373.30 for the dwelling, $512,765.57 for damage to personal property, $30,000 for living expenses, and $29,850 for one Rolex watch. State Farm’s investigator took a recorded statement from Rose and his wife and spoke with Rose’s ex-wife; gathered information by searching public records; and retained a fire investigator, who issued a report, finding that the fire originated in the kitchen, that electrical items did not appear to be the source of the fire, and that neither smoking nor cooking was suspected as a cause. The report indicated that non-reported human action could not be eliminated as a cause, but did not specify that the fire was deliberately ignited. State Farm denied Rose’s claims, alleging that Rose violated “Intentional Acts” and “Concealment or Fraud” conditions of his policies. Rose sued, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. The district court declined to grant summary judgment on the “Intentional Acts” clause, but found that some answers Rose gave, failing to identify multiple tax liens and judgments, in statements to State Farm were misleading and material, and granted summary judgment on the other claim. The Sixth Circuit reversed, finding material questions of fact concerning whether Rose misled investigators.View "Rose v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co." on Justia Law

In December 2010, Cost-U-Less Insurance assisted plaintiffs by telephone, through an InsZone Insurance Services employee, in obtaining a homeowner’s insurance policy with Fidelity. In 2011, a fire damaged plaintiffs’ home. They made a claim with Fidelity. Fidelity property claims representative Fowler sent a letter advising that Fidelity was investigating coverage for the fire incident, indicating that Fidelity had obtained information suggesting plaintiff did not live in the home and that the property had been used and operated as a residential care facility. After an investigation, Fidelity rescinded the homeowner’s policy on the grounds that plaintiffs’ insurance application contained material misrepresentations about various facts concerning plaintiffs’ and their home. The trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of $807,058.10, plus interest and costs of suit. Plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s decision to strike the jury’s $1.9 million punitive damages award. Fidelity appealed that the court committed jury instructional error. The appeals court remanded, holding that the trial court prejudicially erred in refusing to give certain jury instructions concerning whether the application formed an insurance contract.View "Douglas v. Fidelity Nat' Ins.Co." on Justia Law

Homeowner lived in a house that she insured with Farmers Insurance Exchange. The policy contained a clause suspending dwelling coverage if the house was vacant for more than sixty days. Homeowner subsequently moved into a retirement community. While the policy was still effective, fire from a neighboring house spread to Homeowner’s house and damaged it. Farmers denied Homeowner’s claim on the basis that the house had been vacant for more than sixty days. Homeowner sued Farmers for breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment for Homeowner on the contract claim. The court of appeals reversed and rendered judgment for Farmers, concluding that Farmers was not required to establish that the vacancy contributed to cause the loss in order to assert the vacancy clause as a defense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Farmers was not precluded from relying on language in the vacancy clause in response to Homeowner’s claim, and the vacancy provision must be applied according to its terms.View "Greene v. Farmers Ins. Exch." on Justia Law