Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Cincinnati filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that it does not owe a duty to defendant or indemnify claims brought against its insured, All Plumbing, for sending unsolicited faxed advertisements alleged to be in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227. The district court ruled that Cincinnati could not assert any of its defenses to coverage under the primary liability provision of the policy because it had failed to reserve its rights, but could assert such defenses under the excess liability provision. However, the district court did not address the asserted defenses under that provision. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of a final decision as to all requested relief where the district court's decision did not resolve all of Cincinnati’s rights and liabilities under the excess liability provision of the policy. View "Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. All Plumbing, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Delbert Soseeah, Maxine Soseeah and John Borrego filed this action against defendants Sentry Insurance, Dairyland Insurance Company, Peak Property and Casualty Insurance Company, and Viking Insurance Company of Wisconsin (collectively Sentry) claiming, in part, that Sentry failed to timely and properly notify them and other Sentry automobile insurance policyholders of the impact of two New Mexico Supreme Court decisions regarding the availability of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage under their respective policies. The complaint alleged that Delbert Soseeah, after being injured in a motor vehicle accident, made a claim for UM/UIM benefits under two policies of automobile insurance issued by Sentry to Mrs. Soseeah. According to the complaint, Mrs. Soseeah “never executed a valid waiver of UM/UIM coverage under the” two policies and, consequently, Mr. Soseeah “demanded that . . . Sentry reform” the two policies “to provide stacked uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage limits equal to the limits of the liability coverage on each of the vehicles covered by the” policies pursuant to the two New Mexico Supreme Court decisions. Sentry purportedly refused to reform the policies and rejected Mr. Soseeah’s claim for UM/UIM benefits. The complaint alleged that Sentry, by doing so, violated New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act (UPA), violated a portion of New Mexico’s Insurance Code known as the Trade Practices and Frauds Act (TPFA), breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breached the terms of the two policies. The district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Sentry subsequently sought and was granted permission to appeal the district court’s class certification ruling. Because plaintiffs failed to establish that all members of the general certified class suffered the common injury required by Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2), the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court abused its discretion in certifying the general class. Because the district court’s certification ruling did not expressly address the Rule 23 factors as they applied to each of the identified subclasses, the Court did not have enough information to determine whether the district court abused its discretion in certifying two subclasses. Consequently, the Court directed the district court on remand to address these issues. View "Soseeah v. Sentry Insurance" on Justia Law

USF&G filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1491(a)(1), seeking reimbursement from the government for legal expenses and settlement costs it allegedly incurred in its capacity as general liability insurer for Gibbs Construction, a government contractor. USF&G alleged that, in a contract for renovation work at the New Orleans main post office, the U.S. Postal Service agreed to indemnify Gibbs and its agents against any liability incurred as a result of asbestos removal work under the contract. USF&G alleged that the Postal Service failed to indemnify Gibbs in connection with a lawsuit filed against Gibbs by a former Postal Service police officer, in which the officer claimed that he contracted mesothelioma as a result of asbestos removal during performance of the contract, and that, as Gibbs’s general liability insurer, it was required to litigate and settle the officer’s claim. The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal. The Claims Court lacked jurisdiction under a theory of equitable subrogation. View "Fid. & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, alleging to be putative class members of multiple class actions, have filed their own individual suits against the defendant, Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (Citizens). Plaintiffs were residents of, and owned homes in, St. Bernard Parish at the time Hurricane Katrina. Their properties were insured under policies of all-risk or homeowners insurance by defendant. Plaintiffs originally filed suit against Citizens on December 3, 2009, seeking contractual and bad faith damages arising out of Citizens’ handling of their property damage claims related to Hurricane Katrina. Citizens excepted on grounds of prescription and lis pendens. At issue is whether the doctrine of lis pendens barred plaintiffs’ suits where the plaintiffs were not named parties in the first-filed class actions. The Supreme Court found the trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s exception of lis pendens. View "Aisola v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp." on Justia Law

This case concerned a dispute regarding who was entitled to the proceeds of a retirement annuity contract. Plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory judgment pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act claiming that she was entitled to the proceeds. The circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendant. Plaintiff appealed. The district court did not reach the merits of the case, concluding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the dispute because only a district court has jurisdiction over matters brought under the Declaratory Judgments Act, no matter the amount in controversy. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a cause of action seeking declaratory relief can be within the jurisdiction of the circuit court so long as the circuit court has jurisdiction independent of the declaratory relief requested; and (2) in this case, the circuit court had jurisdiction independent of the declaratory relief sought, and therefore, the court had jurisdiction to decide the declaratory judgment claim. View "Best v. Best" on Justia Law

This case was, "[i]n short, ... an insurance bad faith failure to defend/indemnify/settle case arising out of several underlying lawsuits, which in turn arose out of the [respondents'] operation and financing of a dairy farm in between 2007 and 2010." Specifically, the respondents were involved in two earlier actions, the first as plaintiffs and the second as defendants. Both actions concerned the respondents' operation of a dairy farm and milking facility located in Dallas County. At all relevant times in the first action, both Laird Cole and Henry Cole were insured by Alfa Mutual Insurance Company. At all relevant times in the second action, Laird Cole was insured by Alfa. While these two actions were ongoing, Jerry Newby was the president and chief executive officer of Alfa. On July 25, 2013, Laird Cole and Foundation Farms sued Alfa in the circuit court, alleging "claims of fraud, breach of contract, bad faith, breach of the enhanced duty of good faith, negligence, and wantonness arising out of [Alfa's] handling [of the] underlying lawsuits." The respondents filed an amended complaint adding Henry Cole as an additional plaintiff and "clear[ing] up some of the allegations." On April 30, 2014, Alfa moved for summary judgment, alleging that there was no dispute as to any material fact and that Alfa was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Respondents then served Alfa with a subpoena ordering Newby to appear at a video deposition. Newby and Alfa petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to vacate its November 19, 2014, order denying the petitioners' motion to quash the subpoena directed to Newby for deposition testimony that was requested by respondents. After review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that petitioners failed to demonstrate that they had a clear legal right to the relief sought and denied their petition. View "Ex parte Jerry Newby and Alfa Mutual Insurance Company." on Justia Law

Jennifer Ploutis’ home was insured under a policy issued by Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company when water pipes in the home burst, damaging the home and certain contents. When the parties were unable to reach an agreement on the cost of certain repairs, Ploutis filed a complaint for breach of contract against Allstate. Upon the request of Ploutis, the action was nonsuited. Well after two years after the damage was sustained, Ploutis filed the present action. Allstate filed a demurrer asserting that Ploutis failed to comply with the conditions precedent under the policy by bringing the action within two years “after the inception of loss or damage.” The circuit court overruled the demurrer, concluding that the limitations period was tolled pursuant to Va. Code Ann. 8.01-229(E)(3), which tolls the “statute of limitations” with respect to nonsuited actions. Judgment was entered in favor of Ploutis. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court and entered final judgment for Allstate, holding that the circuit court erred in ruling that section 8.01-229(E)(3) applies to the contractual period of limitations for filing an action under Allstate’s policy. View "Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Ploutis" on Justia Law

Defendant Cy Tapia, a teenager living with his aunt and grandmother, was driving a vehicle which crashed, inflicting severe and eventually fatal injuries on his passenger, Cory Driscoll. Before his death Driscoll and his mother filed an action for damages. The parties established that the vehicle driven by Tapia was owned by his grandfather and that Tapia was entitled to $100,000 in liability coverage under an auto policy issued to Melissa McGuire (Tapia’s sister), which listed the vehicle as an insured vehicle and listed Tapia as the driver of the vehicle. The policy was issued by petitioner-defendant 21st Century Insurance Company. 21st Century offered to settle the action for the policy limits of the McGuire policy ($100,000). However, plaintiff1 also believed that Tapia might be covered under policies issued to his aunt and grandmother, each offering $25,000 in coverage and also issued by 21st Century. Plaintiff communicated an offer to settle for $150,000 to Tapia’s counsel; 21st Century contended that it never received this offer (although there was certainly evidence to the contrary). Inferrably having realized the seriousness of its position, 21st Century affirmatively offered the “full” $150,000 to settle the case against Tapia. Plaintiff did not accept this offer, but a month later plaintiff’s counsel served a statutory offer to compromise seeking $3,000,000 for Cory Driscoll and $1,150,000 for his mother Jenny Driscoll. Shortly before the expiration of this offer, 21st Century sent Tapia a letter warning him that it would not agree to be bound if Tapia personally elected to accept the offer. Nonetheless, Tapia agreed to the entry of a stipulated judgment in the amounts demanded by plaintiff. 21st Century paid $150,000 plus interest to the plaintiff. Tapia then assigned any rights he had against 21st Century to plaintiff. This assignment and agreement included plaintiff’s promise not to execute on the judgment against Tapia so long as he complied with his obligations, e.g., to testify to certain facts concerning the original litigation and 21st Century’s actions. This bad faith action followed. Petitioner's unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment, and petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to overturn the trial court's denial. Upon review, the Court of Appeal found that plaintiff’s efforts to pursue essentially a “bad faith” action as assignee of the insured was misguided. Accordingly, petitioner was entitled to summary judgment. View "21st Century Ins. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Pursuant to a scheduling order issued by the magistrate judge that included a report of the parties’ discovery conference, the initial date agreed for disclosures was April 6, 2011. It was undisputed that plaintiff Sun River had a "D&O" insurance policy, which potentially covered securities-related counterclaims asserted by defendants, thus requiring Sun River to disclose the policy pursuant to the scheduling order. No disclosure of the policy was made until eighteen months later, only after counsel for defendants repeatedly pressed the issue based on other information raising suspicions of an undisclosed policy, and then filed a motion to compel its production. By that time coverage under this “claims made” policy had lapsed. When the omission came to light, defendants moved for an order sanctioning Sun River under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) by dismissing Sun River’s claims against defendants and entering a default judgment for defendants on their counterclaims against Sun River. The magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing on the motion, taking testimony from Sun River's former attorneys, in-house counsel James Pennington and outside counsel (and counsel-of-record) Stephen Csajaghy regarding events surrounding their failure to timely disclose the policy. The magistrate judge ultimately recommended that the motion for sanctions be granted insofar as it sought a default judgment against Sun River on defendants’ counterclaims, but denied insofar as it sought dismissal of Sun River’s claims against defendants, which were not affected by the operative nondisclosure. The district court agreed with the magistrate judge about counsel’s performance with respect to disclosure of the D&O Policy, but concluded that Sun River should not be held responsible in the matter. Instead, the district court decided counsel were culpable for the disclosure violation and should be held personally liable for the attorney fees expended by defendants in pursuing the motion for sanctions. The attorneys moved for reconsideration, arguing: (1) Rule 37(c) did not authorize sanctions on counsel; (2) counsel acted with substantial justification, precluding the imposition of sanctions; (3) any sanction should have been imposed on Sun River, Pennington’s employer at the time of the initial nondisclosure, rather than on counsel; and (4) due process precluded the imposition of a sanction on Csajaghy, who had withdrawn and was not present at a July 2013 pretrial conference when the district court redirected the focus of the requested sanction from Sun River to counsel. The district court reaffirmed the sanction against both counsel and reduced it to judgment. The Tenth Circuit reversed as to the sanction against Pennington, and affirmed it against Csajaghy. While the district court found that the failure to disclose the insurance policy was not substantially justified, it did not find that Pennington acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Csajaghy’s unfounded assumption about Pennington’s review of the D&O Policy was insufficient to establish a substantial justification for his failure to disclose the policy. View "Sun River Energy v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Equinox on the Battenkill Management Association, Inc., appealed a superior court's grant of summary-judgment denying insurance coverage. The appeal arose from a declaratory judgment action against management association’s insurer, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, Inc., to determine coverage under a commercial general liability policy for damage to cantilevered balconies on condominium units it managed in Manchester. The issue this case presented for the Vermont Supreme Court's review centered on whether "Gage v. Union Mutual Fire Insurance Co,." (169 A.2d 29 (1961)) was still good law with regards to the meaning of "collapse" and whether "Gage" controlled the result here. After review, the Court concluded that the policy language in this dispute was broader than the language in Gage and that therefore Gage did not control. The Court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment and remanded the case for that court to resolve disputed questions of fact and interpret the applicable policy language. View "Equinox on the Battenkill Management Assn., Inc. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co." on Justia Law