Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

During his employment with a subsidiary of Santander Holdings, Stevens received treatment for ankylosing spondylitis, a chronic inflammatory disease, and participated in a short-term disability plan (STD) and a long-term disability plan (LTD). When Stevens’ condition worsened, Liberty Mutual, the administrator of Santander’s plans, initially awarded STD benefits to Stevens, then determined that Stevens no longer suffered from a qualifying disability and terminated his benefits. Stevens sued under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001. The district court found that Liberty Mutual’s decision to terminate Stevens’s STD benefits was arbitrary and capricious and remanded with instructions to reinstate Stevens’s STD benefit payments retroactively and to determine his eligibility for LTD benefit payments. The Third Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the remand order to the plan administrator was not a “final decision” appealable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 at that time. The district court retained jurisdiction over the case and the order is not yet appealable. View "Stevens v. Santander Holdings USA Inc." on Justia Law

Federated, a Minnesota corporation, insured Missouri property owned by Hubbard and leased to the McKees. A fire damaged the property. Both Hubbard and the McKees, who said they exercised an option to purchase the property, made claims. Federated claimed it owed $40,980.95 and that Hubbard and the McKees disputed the distribution. Asserting that Federated owed more, Hubbard counterclaimed for vexatious refusal to pay. The district court authorized Federated to deposit $40,980.95 and dismissed Hubbard’s counterclaim. The parties mediated. In an e-mail to Federated’s counsel and the McKees’ counsel, Hubbard’s counsel wrote that the McKee claim was resolved by payment of $10,879.39. The email stated: As the sum owed to the McKee defendants is less than $11,000.00, there is no possible way that the McKee defendants should have to proceed further as Federated has asserted it owes no less than $40,980.95. Seven months later, Hubbard sued Federated and the McKees in state court. Federated removed the case; Hubbard moved to remand. Concluding that Hubbard fraudulently joined the McKees, the court dismissed them, denied remand, and applied res judicata and collateral estoppel to Hubbard’s claim. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, noting that in the original case, the district court has distributed the interpleaded funds and dismissed with prejudice. View "Hubbard v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

After his car was hit by a car driven negligently by Sheffer, Behlmann was billed $89,884.79 for medical treatment. Behlmann settled with Sheffer for $50,000, the limit of Sheffer’s policy. Behlmann sued his insurer, Century, for underinsured motorist benefits. Century argued that Behlmann’s medical treatment cost less than $50,000 and resulted from pre-existing conditions. The jury found for Century. Behlmann unsuccessfully requested a new trial, challenging the admission of evidence on the value of his medical treatment and the strike of the only African-American venire person. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, noting Missouri law: “Parties may introduce evidence of the value of the medical treatment rendered to a party that was reasonable, necessary, and a proximate result of the negligence of any party.” Behlmann did not establish that Century’s reasons for the strike were pretextual. Juror 4 was a long-time autoworker; he failed to disclose he was an autoworker despite relevant questioning; and he failed to disclose involvement in prior litigation. View "Behlmann v. Century Sur. Co." on Justia Law

McCormick bought a single-premium variable life-insurance policy that permits borrowing against its cash value. Loans are secured by moving an equivalent amount from sub-accounts that the policyholder can invest to a “general account” that draws 4% interest. The policyholder owes 4.7% on any borrowed sums, so the net is 0.7% per annum, plus foregoing the opportunity to exercise discretion about how to invest the borrowed sum. If the owner does not pay the annual interest, “it will be added to the principal of the loan and will bear interest.” McCormick borrowed against cash value and did not pay interest. Independence, the insurer, added the unpaid interest “to the principal of the loan” (which caused additional sums to be moved from investments into the general account) and charged interest on the higher indebtedness. Compound interest has increased the debt by $44,000, which, if not repaid, will reduce the death benefit. McCormick sought a declaration that the $44,000 is not owed, because, when unpaid interest was added to principal and moved to the general account, it was “paid” automatically. The court entered judgment for Independence. The Seventh Circuit vacated with instructions to dismiss. Removal rested on diversity of citizenship, and $75,000 is the minimum amount in controversy for that jurisdiction. View "McCormick v. Independence Life & Annuity Co." on Justia Law

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to consider an issue of first impression regarding whether an insured forfeits insurance coverage by settling a tort claim without the consent of its insurer, when the insurer defends the insured subject to a reservation of rights, asserting that the claims may not be covered by the policy. In 1994, a class action lawsuit was filed against Appellant-Insureds Babcock & Wilcox Company (B&W) and Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) (collectively, Insureds) brought by plaintiffs claiming to have suffered bodily injury and property damage caused by emissions from nuclear facilities owned by Insureds. Over time, the class action grew to include over 500 named plaintiffs, who lived near the nuclear facilities. Insureds denied that the facilities released any emissions or that the harm suffered by plaintiffs resulted from the facilities. While the underlying tort action was pending in federal court, disputes arose between Insureds and their insurers, Appellees American Nuclear Insurers and Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters (collectively ANI or Insurer). At the outset of the litigation, Insurer acknowledged that it would defend Insureds but contested whether the policy covered aspects of the claims, and thus defended subject to a reservation of rights. While staying various claims for future determination, including the breach of the duty to cooperate claim, the court decided issues regarding the trigger of coverage and held that B&W and ARCO were entitled to separate counsel. During the course of the litigation, Insurer refused consent to any settlement offers presented to it due to its conclusion that the case had a strong likelihood of a defense verdict given the lack of medical and scientific support for plaintiffs’ claims and decisions by the federal trial court regarding procedural and evidentiary issues in the pending retrial, which Insurer viewed as highly favorable to Insureds’ ultimate outcome. After presenting the settlement offers to Insurer and being denied consent, Insureds ARCO and B&W, respectively in 2008 and 2009, settled with the class action plaintiffs for a total of $80 million, which was substantially less than the $320 million of potential coverage. Insureds then sought reimbursement of the settlement amount from Insurer. The Supreme Court found that after an extensive trial where the jury was presented with voluminous evidence relating to the strength of the underlying action and the settlement offer, the jury determined that the settlement was “fair and reasonable from the perspective of a reasonably prudent person in the same position of [Insureds] and in light of the totality of the circumstances,” a standard which the Court adopted as the proper standard to apply in a reservation of rights case where an insured settles following the insurers’ refusal to consent to settlement. The Court concluded that the Superior Court erred by requiring an insured to demonstrate bad faith when the insured accepts a settlement offer in a reservation of rights case. Accordingly, the Superior Court's decision was reversed and the trial court's judgment reinstated. View "Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. American Nuclear Insurers & Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs (a class of 1,593) alleged that Visteon failed to deliver timely notice to ex-employees, offering them an opportunity to continue health insurance at their own expense, under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA). An employer has 44 days after the end of a person’s employment to provide notice and essential details, 29 U.S.C. 1166(a)(2). The court found that Visteon had provided untimely notice to 741 former employees, and that the notice averaged 376 days late for those persons. The court awarded $2,500 to each class member who had received untimely notice (a total of about $1.85 million), a sum that does not depend on how long the delay was for any given person. While the suit was pending, Visteon was reorganized in bankruptcy. The plan provides that debts of this kind will be paid 50¢ on the dollar, so each of the 741 will receive $1,250. The court also ordered Visteon to pay class counsel $302,780 as attorneys’ fees plus costs of about $11,000. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the award of attorneys’ fees, but otherwise dismissed plaintiffs’ challenge to the penalty as untimely, having been filed several months after the district court’s delayed entry of judgment. View "Pierce v. Visteon Corp." on Justia Law

In 2009, CE filed a class action suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, against King. King had commercial general liability and umbrella policies from three insurance companies, but all three disclaimed any obligation to defend or indemnify, based on provisions in the policies that appeared to exempt liability under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act from coverage. The district court certified the class. On remand, CE and King agreed to settle the case for $20 million, the limit of the insurance policies. Their agreement, approved by the district court, provided that only one percent of the judgment ($200,000) could be executed against King. Upon learning of the proposed settlement, the insurers sought a state court declaratory judgment. A state court ruled that the insurance policies do not cover liability under the Act, but CE is appealing that decision. After the settlement agreement in the federal case, but before its approval, the insurers moved to intervene under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a), (b), hoping to delay approval of the settlement until there was a state-court determination. The Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of the motion to intervene as untimely. View "Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. King Supply Co., LLC" on Justia Law

Manuel’s home burned down while he and his family were vacationing in Las Vegas. Manuel had insured his home through MDOW with a policy providing $150,000 for the house, $75,000 for personal property, and $45,000 for added costs. Manuel filed a claim for the fire, but MDOW denied it. MDOW told Manuel that it believed he or someone acting on his behalf had intentionally set the fire and that Manuel’s claim form contained fraudulent information. Manuel sued. A jury found that MDOW proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Manuel “either burned his home or caused it to be burned.” The jury did not decide whether Manuel had intentionally misrepresented information during the fire investigation. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, agreeing even under an “implied bias” test of juror impartiality, there was insufficient potential bias alleged to warrant a new trial. The court rejected an argument that the court erred by allowing the testimony of MDOW’s expert witness, who disagreed with parts of the National Fire Protection Association 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations. View "Manuel v. MDOW Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Alfa Mutual General Insurance Company ("Alfa") petitioned for a writ of mandamus to direct the Mobile Circuit Court to grant its motion seeking to realign the parties to the underlying litigation so that Alfa may "opt out" of participation in the trial. In October 2012, respondent Mark Trotter was injured when a "road sweeper" he was operating was struck by a vehicle being operated by Daniel Elijah Davis, an uninsured motorist. In October 2014, Trotter sued Alfa seeking to recover uninsured/underinsured motorist ("UIM") benefits pursuant to a policy of insurance issued by Alfa to Trotter, which was in place at the time of the 2012 accident. Trotter did not include Davis as a codefendant in his action against Alfa. Alfa subsequently filed a third-party complaint adding Davis as a third-party defendant. Specifically, Alfa's third-party complaint alleged that, to the extent it was determined to be liable to Trotter for UIM benefits, then Alfa was subrogated to and entitled to recover the amount of that liability from Davis. Thereafter, Alfa filed a "Motion to Realign Parties" in which it asked to "opt out" of the litigation. Without explaining the findings on which its decision was based, the trial court denied Alfa's motion. The Alabama Supreme Court concluded after a review of the record, that Alfa has demonstrated a clear legal right to have its motion to realign the parties granted and to allow it to opt out of the underlying litigation. No authority is cited requiring that, in order to make the permitted election, Alfa must first release the right of subrogation to which it was also clearly entitled. View "Ex parte Alfa Mutual General Insurance Company." on Justia Law

Charles and Deborah Bate were both seriously injured in a head-on vehicle collision. After obtaining a judgment against the driver of the opposing vehicle the Bates sued Greenwich Insurance Company seeking underinsured motorist coverage under a policy allegedly issued to Charles Bate’s employer by Greenwich. Greenwich did not answer the petition, and the Bates obtained a default judgment in the amount of $3 million. More than two years later, Greenwich filed an amended motion to set aside the default judgment as void, arguing that service of process was invalid. The trial court set aside the default judgment as void, stating that there was no valid service of process. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Bates properly effected service of process under Mo. Rev. Stat. 375.906 and complied with all service requirements of that statute. View "Bate v. Greenwich Ins. Co." on Justia Law