Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Dionicio Rodriguez, an employee of SIR Electric LLC (SIR), was injured while working and filed for workers' compensation benefits under SIR's policy with Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company (Hartford). After receiving benefits, Rodriguez filed a personal injury lawsuit against SIR, alleging negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, and intentional wrongdoing. SIR requested Hartford to defend against the lawsuit, but Hartford refused, citing policy exclusions. SIR then filed a third-party complaint against Hartford, claiming wrongful disclaimer of defense coverage.The trial court granted Hartford's motion to dismiss SIR's complaint, ruling that the policy excluded intent-based claims. SIR's motion for reconsideration and to amend its complaint, arguing that the policy's enhanced intentional injury exclusion (EII exclusion) violated public policy, was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and held that Hartford has no duty to defend SIR. The court determined that Rodriguez's claims of negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness are subject to the workers' compensation exclusivity bar and are not covered under Part One of the policy. These claims are also excluded from coverage under Part Two of the policy. Additionally, Rodriguez's claims of intentional wrongdoing are excluded under the policy's EII exclusion.The court concluded that the trial judge properly denied SIR's motion to amend its third-party complaint, as the EII exclusion does not violate public policy. The court affirmed the Appellate Division's judgment, upholding the dismissal of SIR's third-party complaint against Hartford. View "Rodriguez v. Shelbourne Spring, LLC" on Justia Law

Erin Hughes, the plaintiff, obtained two homeowner’s insurance policies for her property in Malibu. One policy, through the California FAIR Plan Association (FAIR Plan), covered fire loss, while the other, issued by Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers), did not. After a fire caused significant damage to her property, Hughes filed a lawsuit against Farmers, alleging it was vicariously liable for the negligence of its agent, Maritza Hartnett, who assisted her in obtaining the FAIR Plan policy, resulting in underinsurance for fire loss.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Farmers’ motion for summary judgment, ruling that Hartnett was not acting within the scope of her agency with Farmers when she assisted Hughes in obtaining the FAIR Plan policy. The court also denied Hughes’s motion for leave to amend her complaint.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that Hartnett was not acting as Farmers’ actual or ostensible agent when she helped Hughes obtain the FAIR Plan policy. The court found that Hartnett’s agent appointment agreement with Farmers did not include authority to transact insurance business on behalf of Farmers for policies issued by unrelated carriers like FAIR Plan. Additionally, the court determined that Hughes failed to present evidence showing that Farmers’ conduct could have led her to reasonably believe Hartnett was acting as its agent in procuring the FAIR Plan policy. The court also upheld the trial court’s denial of Hughes’s motion for leave to amend her complaint, citing her failure to provide an excuse for the delay in filing the motion and the potential prejudice to Farmers. View "Hughes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange" on Justia Law

Jennings Plant Services, LLC, and its members, Spencer and Tarin Jennings, filed a lawsuit against Ellerbrock-Norris Agency, Inc., and Elliot Bassett, alleging that Ellerbrock-Norris failed to provide competent insurance advice. Specifically, Jennings claimed that Ellerbrock-Norris advised them not to add a company-owned vehicle, a Ford F-150, to their commercial insurance policies, which led to a lack of coverage when the vehicle was involved in a fatal collision. This resulted in a significant judgment against Jennings in a federal wrongful death case brought by Kacey Kimbrough, the special administrator of the estate of Shawn Thomas Kimbrough.In the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, Kimbrough obtained a judgment of $5,436,266.87 against Jennings Plant Services. As part of a partial settlement, Jennings assigned Kimbrough a right to 85% of any proceeds from their state lawsuit against Ellerbrock-Norris. Kimbrough then sought to intervene in the state lawsuit under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-328, claiming an interest in the litigation due to her assigned right to a portion of the proceeds.The District Court for Washington County denied Kimbrough's motion to intervene, finding that she had no direct cause of action against either Jennings or Ellerbrock-Norris and no legal interest in the subject matter of the underlying litigation. The court determined that Kimbrough's interest was indirect and insufficient to warrant intervention under § 25-328.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Kimbrough's alleged interest in the proceeds of the lawsuit was too attenuated to constitute a direct and legal interest in the litigation. The court concluded that Kimbrough, as a mere creditor with an indirect interest, did not meet the statutory requirements for intervention. View "Jennings Plant Services, LLC v. Ellerbrock-Norris Agency" on Justia Law

Erin Hughes, the plaintiff, obtained two homeowner’s insurance policies for her property in Malibu. One policy, through the California FAIR Plan Association (FAIR Plan), covered fire loss, while the other, issued by Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers), did not. After a fire caused significant damage to her property, Hughes filed a lawsuit against Farmers, alleging it was vicariously liable for the negligence of its agent, Maritza Hartnett, who assisted her in obtaining the FAIR Plan policy, resulting in underinsurance for fire loss.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Farmers’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that Hartnett was not acting within the scope of her agency with Farmers when she assisted Hughes in obtaining the FAIR Plan policy. The court also denied Hughes’s motion for leave to amend her complaint.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that Hartnett was not acting as Farmers’ actual or ostensible agent when she helped Hughes obtain the FAIR Plan policy. The court found that Hartnett was acting as an independent broker for the FAIR Plan policy and not on behalf of Farmers. Additionally, the court determined that Hughes failed to present evidence that could establish a triable issue regarding Farmers’ vicarious liability for Hartnett’s actions.The court also upheld the trial court’s denial of Hughes’s motion for leave to amend her complaint, noting that Hughes offered no explanation for the delay in filing the motion and that allowing the amendment would have prejudiced Farmers and Hartnett. The judgment in favor of Farmers was affirmed, and Farmers was entitled to recover its costs on appeal. View "Hughes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange" on Justia Law

Following heavy snowfall in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, the roofs of several chicken houses at ten poultry farms collapsed. Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Company, which insured the farms, sued Rogers Manufacturing Corporation, the manufacturer of the roof trusses used in the chicken houses, claiming strict product liability, negligence, and breach of warranties. Rogers moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Norfolk’s claims were barred by the Arkansas statute of repose.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas agreed with Rogers and dismissed the complaint. Norfolk appealed the dismissal, arguing that the statute of repose did not apply to Rogers because the roof trusses were standardized goods, not custom-designed for the farms.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in Norfolk’s favor. The court found that Norfolk’s complaint plausibly supported an inference that the roof trusses were standardized goods, which would not be covered by the Arkansas statute of repose. The court emphasized that at this early stage, the complaint should not be dismissed if it allows for a reasonable inference of liability.The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings, noting that the facts and legal arguments could be further developed as the case progresses. View "Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Rogers Manufacturing Corporation" on Justia Law

Patricia Nicholson filed a garnishment action after her husband was killed in an accident involving Ava Mercer, who was insured by Key Insurance Company. Key provided Mercer with an attorney but did not actively defend her. Nicholson attempted to settle for the policy limit, but Key delayed. Nicholson then filed a wrongful death suit, and Key offered to settle for the policy limit, which Nicholson rejected. Instead, Nicholson and Mercer agreed that Mercer would assign her rights to sue Key for bad faith to Nicholson, and Nicholson would not execute any judgment against Mercer. Mercer waived her right to a jury trial and did not present a defense. Nicholson won a $3 million verdict.The Leavenworth District Court ruled against Key on the merits, finding that Key acted in bad faith and ordered garnishment for the $3 million judgment. Key did not argue that garnishment was statutorily unavailable due to the assignment of rights at the district court level. On appeal, Key raised the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction for the first time, arguing that garnishment was impossible following an assignment of rights, thus the district court lacked jurisdiction.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court clarified that subject-matter jurisdiction is the constitutional power of courts to decide disputes and does not disappear due to a flawed claim. The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to hear Nicholson's garnishment action on the merits. The court emphasized that Key's statutory arguments should have been presented as a motion to dismiss at the district court level and could not be raised for the first time on appeal under the guise of a jurisdictional argument. The judgment of the Court of Appeals and the district court was affirmed. View "Nicholson v. Mercer" on Justia Law

A driver, Safet Miftari, was injured in an accident caused by an uninsured motorist while driving his taxi. He filed a claim for coverage under a policy he had for a different vehicle, which was denied by his insurer, Umialik Insurance Co., because the policy excluded uninsured and underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage for vehicles not insured under the same policy. Miftari then sued the uninsured motorist, who defaulted, and a jury awarded Miftari $1 million in noneconomic damages. Subsequently, Miftari sued Umialik to enforce the judgment.The Superior Court of Alaska, Fourth Judicial District, granted Miftari’s motion for partial summary judgment, holding that Umialik was bound by the prior judgment under the doctrine of res judicata. The court also denied Umialik’s motion to prevent Miftari from pursuing economic damages. In a separate order, the court held that the insurance policy’s exclusion of UIM coverage for injuries sustained in any of the policyholder’s vehicles insured under a separate policy was not authorized by Alaska law.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case. It held that Alaska law does not authorize excluding UIM coverage for a vehicle not insured under the same insurance policy under which UIM coverage is sought. The court also concluded that res judicata prohibits the parties from relitigating noneconomic damages and litigating economic damages against the insurer. The court affirmed the superior court’s orders on summary judgment, binding Umialik to the jury’s damages verdict and precluding Miftari from seeking economic damages. View "Umialik Insurance Co. v. Miftari" on Justia Law

In April 2013, Michael Riste applied for a bail bond for his son, Michael Peterson, and signed an Indemnity Agreement and a Premium Agreement with Bad Boys Bail Bonds (Bail Agent). The agreements required Riste to pay a $10,000 premium in installments. Peterson signed identical documents after his release. The Bail Agent executed a $100,000 bail bond on behalf of The North River Insurance Company (Surety), ensuring Peterson's appearance at future court proceedings. Peterson failed to appear, leading to the forfeiture of the bail bond and a summary judgment against the Surety in October 2015.Two panels of the California Court of Appeal previously affirmed the denial of motions by the Surety and Bail Agent to set aside the summary judgment, vacate the forfeiture, and exonerate the bond. In October 2020, a class action cross-claim in Caldwell v. BBBB Bonding Corp. argued that the Bail Agent's premium financing agreements were subject to Civil Code section 1799.91 and were unenforceable without proper notice to cosigners. The trial court and the Court of Appeal agreed, enjoining the Bail Agent from enforcing such agreements without the requisite notice.In September 2022, the Surety and Bail Agent filed a third motion to set aside the summary judgment, citing Caldwell and arguing that the premium was part of the consideration for the bail bond, making the bond void. The trial court denied the motion, and the Surety and Bail Agent appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court's order. The court held that the bail bond was not void because the consideration for the bail bond was Peterson's release from custody, not the premium financing agreement. The court concluded that the trial court had jurisdiction over the bond and properly denied the motion to set aside the summary judgment, vacate the forfeiture, and exonerate the bond. View "People v. North River Insurance Co." on Justia Law

A construction company chartered a barge and obtained insurance through a broker. Upon returning the barge, the owner discovered damage and sued the construction company in federal court. The construction company requested its insurer to defend it, but the insurer refused, citing lack of coverage. After the federal court awarded damages to the barge owner, the construction company sued the insurer and broker in state court, alleging breach of contract, insurance bad faith, and negligence.The Superior Court of Alaska denied the construction company's motion for summary judgment against the broker and insurer. The court granted summary judgment to the broker and insurer, finding that the construction company's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The court held an evidentiary hearing and concluded that the construction company had not relied on any reassurances from the broker that would have delayed the filing of the lawsuit.The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's decision. The court held that the construction company's claims against the broker were time-barred, as the statute of limitations began to run when the insurer first denied coverage. The court also held that the construction company's claims against the insurer were time-barred, as the statute of limitations began to run when the insurer refused to defend the construction company in the federal lawsuit. The court concluded that the construction company's claims were untimely and affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the broker and insurer. View "Swalling Construction Company, Inc. v. Alaska USA Insurance Brokers, LLC" on Justia Law

William Loomis was injured in a two-vehicle accident while driving a truck for his employer, XPO Logistics, Inc. The truck was registered in Indiana and garaged in New York. After recovering the full amount from the other vehicle’s liability insurer, Loomis sought additional recovery from ACE American Insurance Company, XPO’s insurer. ACE denied the claim, stating that the policy did not include underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage in Indiana or New York.Loomis sued ACE in New York state court, alleging breach of the insurance agreement. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The district court granted Loomis’s motion, applying Indiana law, and concluded that the policy was not exempt from Indiana’s UIM statute. However, the court later granted ACE’s motion for summary judgment, determining that ACE’s obligation to provide UIM coverage was subject to the exhaustion of a $3 million retained limit. Both parties appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified two questions to the Indiana Supreme Court.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the term “commercial excess liability policy” under Indiana law is ambiguous and must be construed in favor of the insured. Therefore, the policy in question is not exempt from the UIM coverage requirements. Additionally, the court found that the phrase “limits of liability” is also ambiguous and must be construed in favor of the insured, meaning that ACE’s statutory obligation to provide UIM coverage is not subject to the $3 million retained limit. The court answered both certified questions in the negative, ruling in favor of Loomis. View "Loomis v. ACE American Insurance Co." on Justia Law