Case Summaries

Insurance Law

[08/27] Fidelity and Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Star Equip. Corp.
In a dispute arising over a construction contract, enforcement of a settlement agreement and grant of summary judgment are affirmed where: 1) a hand-written agreement contemplated execution of a more formal agreement does not preclude enforcement of the hand-written agreement; 2) the terms of this settlement were clear and unambiguous; 3) there was no error in the district court's order enforcing the Settlement Memorandum of Agreement as a settlement agreement that disposed of all the claims in the case except the indemnification dispute; and 4) Fidelity is entitled to indemnification because defendants failed to present any material facts which would give rise to a factual dispute as to a 'want of good faith' on the part of Fidelity.

[08/26] Columbia Cas. Co. v. Georgia & Florida Railnet Inc.
Declaratory judgment that defendant-railroad had no coverage under an insurance policy issued by plaintiff for a former employee's claims of injury is affirmed where: 1) the matter was ripe for review despite ongoing proceedings in an underlying state suit; 2) plaintiff did not breach the policy by refusing to cover inhalation claims; 3) defendant was not prejudiced by plaintiff's allegedly delayed denial of coverage; and 4) defendant's denial of coverage was not a per se violation of the state insurance code.

[08/26] Fidelity and Guaranty Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. Jasam Realty Corp.
In an insurance claims case related to a personal injury action, judgment for plaintiff-insurer is vacated and remanded where: 1) the district court's special verdict form permitted the jury to consider incorrect dates on which the veracity of the alleged misrepresentations could be judged; and 2) the court did not correct the error when invited by the jury to clarify the matter

[08/26] Della Dial v. Healthspring of Alabama, Inc.
In an appeal presenting the question of whether a complaint about conduct regulated by the Medicare Act filed in a state court may be removed to a federal court, denial of plaintiffs' motion to remand is reversed and remanded where: 1) because the plaintiffs' action is not a "civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction," the action is not removable; and 2) the district court would lack subject-matter jurisdiction over their complaint because it is not against the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services for review of an administrative decision.

[08/25] State of California v. Altus Fin., S.A.
In an action arising from the 1991 insolvency and subsequent rehabilitation of an insurer following the largest insurance failure in California history, wherein California's Insurance Commissioner alleged intentional misrepresentation, concealment and conspiracy to defraud, a judgment and award for the Commissioner is affirmed, reversed, and vacated in part where: 1) an order vacating a $700 million punitive damages award was proper as the award was invalid under California law; 2) the jury's verdicts could not be reconciled in favor of either side, and a new damages phase trial was warranted on one theory; 3) thus, a restitution award is necessarily vacated; and 4) defendant's motion for summary judgment on res judicata grounds was properly denied.

[08/25] Uhm v. Humana Inc.
In a contract, tort, and consumer protection law action brought by Medicare beneficiaries against a Medicare drug benefit program provider and its parent company, dismissal of the complaint and denial of reconsideration are affirmed where plaintiffs' claims are preempted by the express preemption provision of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003.

[08/22] N. Am. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
In a dispute between primary and excess insurers arising out of a tort suit against a nursing home, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) under state law the limits of insureds' consecutively-held primary insurance policies could not be "stacked" to create a higher primary policy limit and reduce plaintiff-excess insurer's obligation; 2) the anti-stacking rule also applied to defense costs under eroding policies; and 3) the defense costs could not be allocated based on whether they were incurred under the Commercial General Liability or the Hospital Professional Liability portions of the policies.

[08/22] State Farm Bank, FSB v. Reardon
In a case involving whether federal savings association's exclusive agents must comply with the licensing and registration requirements set forth in the Ohio Mortgage Broker Act, a ruling against plaintiff-association is reversed where, contrary to the ruling below, federal law preempts the application of the Ohio Act to plaintiff's exclusive agents.

[08/21] Lloyd's of London v. Pagan-Sanchez v. Caribbean Boat Mfg. and Servs.
In a case involving maritime insurance, denial of plaintiff-insurers' motion for summary judgment that payment under its policy was excused by the insured's breach of warranty is reversed where the district court erroneously applied a different view from the prevailing view, in both federal law and state maritime insurance law, that a breach of warranty will excuse the maritime insurer from payment regardless of any causal connection to the loss.

[08/20] Pac. Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
In a suit over insurance coverage for settlements of wrongful-death lawsuits arising from railroad crossing accidents during a construction project, summary judgment that plaintiff had a duty to defend the insured and that defendant had no duty to defend is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part where the facts of the complaint stated claims that were within the coverage of both defendant's and plaintiff's policies, and both plaintiff and defendant therefore owed a duty to defend.

More...