Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In 1997, Dr. Michael Hayes and Dr. Michael Taillon were working as emergency room physicians at Providence Hospital, presumably as independent contractors. Arthur Sharpe came to the Providence Hospital emergency room complaining of chest pain. Dr. Hayes and Dr. Taillon evaluated Sharpe and diagnosed him as suffering from reflux. Sharpe was discharged. Sharpe had actually suffered a heart attack, which was determined a few days later when he sought further medical care elsewhere. Because of the misdiagnosis, in 1999, Sharpe and his wife filed a medical malpractice and loss of consortium action against Providence Hospital and Dr. Hayes. The Sharpes did not name Dr. Taillon as a defendant. Providence Hospital settled with the Sharpes in 2004. In 2007, Providence Hospital filed this equitable indemnification action against Dr. Taillon and his medical malpractice insurer, The South Carolina Medical Malpractice Liability Joint Underwriting Association (collectively Respondents). Respondents moved for summary judgment on the ground that the medical malpractice statute of repose barred Providence Hospital's claim and the circuit court granted the motion on that basis. Providence Hospital appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether the medical malpractice statute of repose applied to Providence Hospital's indemnity claim. The Court concluded that Providence Hospital's indemnity action was indeed barred by the statute of repose, and as such affirmed the trial court. View "Columbia/CSA-HS Greater Columbia Healthcare System v. So. Carolina Medical Malpractice Liability Joint Underwriting Association" on Justia Law

Jonas and his wife purchased life insurance: each owned the policy on his or her life, with the other as beneficiary. When they divorced, the court reassigned ownership: Troy owned the policy on Jennifer’s life. Each policy provided that change in ownership “does not change the Beneficiary Designation.” Troy thought it unnecessary to redesignate himself as beneficiary. Jennifer died. Troy claimed the proceeds ($1 million). State Farm did not pay, concerned that the proceeds might belong to the children (named secondary beneficiaries) or to Jennifer’s estate under Tex. Family Code 9.301, which provides that if a divorce occurs after one spouse has designated the other as beneficiary of an insurance policy, the designation lapses. Texas law requires an insurer to pay within 60 days of receiving a claim and provides for “damages” at 18% a year plus reasonable attorneys’ fees. An insurer that receives “notice of an adverse, bona fide claim” may defer payment and file an interpleader action not later than the 90th day. State Farm did not receive any other claim, but filed an “interpleader” before the 60 days had run. The district court treated concerns about the potential rights of the children and Jennifer’s estate as equivalent to a claim and disbursed the money to Troy, who argued on appeal that he was entitled to attorneys’ fees and interest at 18%. The Seventh Circuit vacated for dismissal. When the litigation began, there was no justiciable controversy. View "State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Jonas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Kathryn Kipling sued State Farm Automobile Insurance Company in Colorado federal district court for breach of contract because it did not pay her benefits under four insurance policies issued in Minnesota. The court determined that she would be entitled to benefits under Colorado law but not under Minnesota law. It then applied tort conflict-of-laws principles to rule that Colorado law governed. After its review, the Tenth Circuit held that the court erred by not applying contract conflict-of-laws principles. The district court was reversed and the matter remanded for further consideration. View "Kipling v. State Farm Mutual Automobile" on Justia Law

Symetra appealed the district court's refusal to award attorneys' fees under the Texas and Washington State Structured Settlement Protection Acts (SSPAs). Rapid cross appealed the district court's award of attorneys' fees as damages for tortious interference and the district court's permanent injunction, arguing that the injunction relies on an erroneous interpretation of the SSPAs. The court concluded that the district court erroneously held that Symetra could not recover any fees under the SSPAs where specific transfers were challenged throughout this litigation and Symetra can recover some portion of its fees related to some of those transfers. Therefore, remand is appropriate, but Symetra bears the burden of segregating fees and the district court retains discretion to deny Symetra's attorneys' fees request for failure to segregate. The court also concluded that the district court's award of fees incurred in state court with respect to one annuitant as damages for tortious interference under Texas law was proper where the natural and proximate cause of Rapid's conduct toward the annuitant was to drag Symetra into Indiana state court litigation. The district court's requirement that state court transfer orders also list first-refusal rights contravenes the SSPAs. However, the court found no error in the district court's analysis of first refusal rights under the SSPAs. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Symetra Life Ins. Co. v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd." on Justia Law

Seneca Insurance Company paid $1 million to settle a lawsuit in which its insured alleged Seneca had mishandled insurance claims for hail damage to the insured’s property. Seeking to recoup the costs of defending and settling the lawsuit, Seneca brought this action for implied equitable indemnity and negligence against its insurance adjuster, Western Claims, Inc., and Western Claims’ agent Lou Barbaro. The district court allowed Western Claims to discover and admit as evidence at trial correspondence containing advice from Seneca’s lawyers regarding the underlying hail damage claim and litigation. It concluded Seneca put the advice at issue in this lawsuit, thereby waiving any attorney-client privilege or work-product protection. The jury ultimately found in Western Claims’ favor. On appeal, Seneca sought a new trial, arguing the district court erred in concluding Seneca put the legal advice at issue. Western Claims cross appealed, arguing that even if the district court erred, Western Claims was nevertheless entitled to judgment as a matter of law on both of Seneca’s claims. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that because Seneca cited “advice of counsel” to justify settling with its insured in the underlying action, Seneca could not shield that advice from Western Claims. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's decision that Seneca waived any attorney-client privilege or work-product protection. The Court did not reach Western Claims’ cross appeal. View "Seneca Insurance Co. v. Western Claims" on Justia Law

Elvira was driving a car, owned by Mullalli, when she hit ice and collided with a negligently parked vehicle. Elvira, who suffered a traumatic brain injury, acute cervical and lumbar sprains, bulging discs, and other injuries, sued in federal court to recover under Mullalli’s no-fault State Farm automobile insurance policy,. Elvira and Mullalli are citizens of Michigan; State Farm is an Illinois citizen. The district court dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction, reasoning that the suit was a “direct action” under 28 U.S.C. 1332(c)(1), requiring Mullalli’s Michigan citizenship to be imputed to State Farm. The Sixth Circuit reversed. Because the direct action proviso does not apply to suits brought against the insurer by insured persons identifiable before the accident occurs, this suit was not a direct action and Mullalli’s citizenship should not have been imputed to State Farm. The court distinguished between the personal protection provisions of Michigan’s no-fault law that require coverage of an identifiable group of individuals: the named insured, a spouse, any relatives living with them, and any occupant of a car they own and the property protection provision of the statute, which states simply that “an insurer is liable to pay benefits for accidental damage.” View "Ljuljdjuraj v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Judon was injured while riding in a commercial passenger vehicle that was insured by Travelers. Judon sought first-party medical benefits of $7,636.40. Travelers paid $5,000, up to the policy’s first-party medical benefits limit. Judon filed a class-action complaint in state court, alleging that Pennsylvania law required that the policy offer up to $25,000 in first-party medical benefits. Judon alleged that “there are hundreds of members of the class” who were wrongfully denied payment of first-party benefits. Travelers removed to federal court, under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), 1453, arguing that the parties were minimally diverse; the proposed class consisted of at least 100 putative members; and the amount in controversy exceeded $5,000,000. The district court remanded, finding that CAFA’s numerosity and amount-in- controversy requirements were disputed and placing the burden of proof on Travelers to establish jurisdiction. The Third Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part. Judon’s complaint unambiguously pleaded that the numerosity requirement was satisfied, so the court should have placed the burden of proof on Judon to show, to a legal certainty, that the numerosity requirement was not satisfied. The court correctly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard to the amount-in-controversy requirement.View "Judon v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am." on Justia Law

Hoey, who owns a farmers’ market that offers hay rides, pony rides, and pumpkin picking, hired Armbruster to run the hay wagon for eight weekends. Armbruster is now a paraplegic because an accident with the wagon crushed her spine. She sued for negligence in Michigan state court. Armbruster and Hoey also sought a declaratory judgment, again in state court, that Armbruster was covered by Hoey’s General Commercial Liability insurance policy. The insurer, Western, sought a federal declaratory judgment that Armbruster was not covered by the insurance policy. The cases were consolidated in federal court. Counsel, provided by Western to Hoey, filed a workers’ compensation claim on the theory that Armbruster was an “employee” eligible for workers’ compensation. The state tort claim has been stayed until the workers’ compensation claim is resolved. The district court accepted jurisdiction and construed the policy to exclude Armbruster’s injury from coverage. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that it would be helpful for the parties to know whether Western was liable for Hoey’s legal fees, that Western was not playing procedural games, and that the federal forum could resolve the action without interfering in Armbruster’s tort suit or taking on difficult questions of state law.View "W. World Ins. Co. v. Armbruster" on Justia Law

“In Texas, the general rule…is that an injured party cannot sue the tortfeasor’s insurer directly until the tortfeasor’s liability has been finally determined by agreement or judgment.” Plaintiff sued San Diego Tortilla (SDT) for personal injuries after he lost his hand operating a tortilla machine. Plaintiff then added a declaratory judgment claim against SDT’s liability insurer, Essex Insurance Company, seeking a declaration that Essex must indemnify SDT for its liability to Plaintiff. Essex filed motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims, arguing that the “no direct action” rule barred Plaintiff from suing Essex until SDT’s liability to Plaintiff was determined. The trial court denied the motions, and the court of appeals denied Essex’s petition for writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court conditionally granted mandamus and directed the trial court to grant Essex’s motions to dismiss, holding that no exception to the “no direct action” rule applied in this case.View "In re Essex Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In a consolidated appeal, Aviva Life & Annuity challenged identical orders of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma sitting in its capacity as a bankruptcy appellate court. The district court entered the orders in two directly related cases brought by Aviva in the nature of interpleader pursuant to the Federal Interpleader Act, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22. Aviva argued the court erred by limiting the scope of the interpleader relief granted. This case stemmed from the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings of the Millennium Multiple Employer Welfare Benefit Plan. Prior to seeking the protection of the bankruptcy court, the Millennium Plan was an employee welfare benefit plan providing medical, disability, long term care, severance, and death benefits. Participants made contributions to the Millennium Plan, which then purchased life insurance policies (Policies) on the lives of the participants from Aviva and other insurance companies. Finding no reversible error in the district court's decision, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.View "Aviva Life & Annuity v. Millennium Multiple Employer" on Justia Law