Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Appellant, a former plumbing inspector for the Town of Sangerville, sued a Town Selectman, asserting claims of common law slander and violations of his constitutional right to due process. The claims stemmed from the Selectman’s statement at a public meeting that Appellant had made “less than quality decisions” while serving as plumbing inspector. The Selectman filed an offer of judgment, which Appellant accepted. After judgment was entered, Appellant initiated this reach and apply action against Argonaut Insurance Company seeking to recover for the slander count and due process claims. The district court granted summary judgment for Argonaut, concluding that the exclusions in the insurance policies for “employment-related” practices barred Appellant’s recovery. The district court agreed and denied Appellant’s motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that because Appellant’s judgment against the Selectman arose from an employment-related dispute, the insurance policies unambiguously excluded coverage for claims arising from employment-related practices. View "Ruksznis v. Argonaut Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Russ Irwin brought an arbitration proceeding against Lyman Morse Boatbuilding, Inc. (LMB) of Maine and Cabot Lyman, the controlling owner of LMB, claiming damages related to the allegedly defective construction of a luxury yacht. After Northern Assurance Company of America, the insurer for LMB and Lyman, refused the insureds’ request for defense, LMB and Lyman filed this federal suit seeking to recover the costs and attorneys’ fees they incurred in the arbitration proceeding. The district court concluded that Northern Assurance had a duty to defend Lyman but did not have a duty to defend LMB. The First Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Northern Assurance, holding that, under Maine law, the insurer did not owe a duty to defend LMB or Lyman in the underlying arbitration proceeding. View "Lyman Morse Boatbuilding Inc. v. N. Assurance Co." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the fiduciary implications of a life insurance company’s decision to pay benefits through a retained asset account (RAA) that allows the insurance company to invest the retained assets for its own profit. In Merrimon v. Unum Life Insurance Co., decided also this year, the First Circuit held that an insurer, acting in the place and stead of a plan administrator, properly discharges its duties under ERISA when it pays a death benefit by establishing an RAA as long as that method of payment is called for by the terms of the particular employee welfare benefit plan. In this case, Appellant alleged that an Insurer’s use of RAAs as a method of paying death benefits transgressed its ERISA-inspired fiduciary duties. The district court granted summary judgment in the Insurer’s favor. The First Circuit affirmed largely on the basis of its opinion in Merrimon, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the Insurer’s choice to pay by means of an RAA did not violate its fiduciary duties.View "Luitgaren v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada " on Justia Law

Defendant, a law firm, contracted with Plaintiff for Plaintiff to provide title insurance on two mortgages that Defendant took as security from a client indebted to Defendant. Upon foreclosure of liens that were superior to those of Defendant, Defendant sought coverage from Plaintiff under the insurance policies, which seemingly provided coverage for priority liens. Defendant requested indemnification, and Plaintiff sought declaratory judgment, arguing that coverage for priority liens was not intended by either party. A federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff, concluding that because Defendant was aware of the prior mortgages, it could not expect to receive coverage it did not bargain for. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff had conclusively shown that Defendant was aware that its bargain with the client for security of its debt would result in junior mortgages, and the insurance policies clearly excluded such encumbrances from coverage.View "First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Lane Powell PC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged an insurance company's use of "retained asset accounts" (RAAs) as a method of paying life insurance benefits in the ERISA context. They presented the district court with two basic questions: (1) whether the insurer's method of paying death benefits in the form of RAAs constitute self-dealing in plan assets in violation of ERISA section 406(b); and (2) whether this redemption method offended the insurer's duty of loyalty toward the class of beneficiaries in violation of ERISA section 404(a). The district court answered the first question in favor of the insurer and the second in favor of the plaintiff class. The court then awarded class-wide relief totaling more than $12,000,000. Both sides appealed. Upon review, the First Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that the insurer's use of RAAs in this case did not constitute self-dealing in plan assets. However, the Court disagreed with the district court's answer to the second question and held that the insurer's use of RAAs did not breach any duty of loyalty owed by the insurer to the plaintiff class. View "Merrimon, et al v. Unum Life Insurance Company" on Justia Law

Mark Hansen was a former vice president of Wilcox Industries Corp. After Hansen left Wilcox, he founded his own company, Advanced Life Support Technologies. Wilcox filed a complaint against Hansen, alleging that Hansen stole Wilcox’s customers and spread false and damaging information about Wilcox’s products. Hansen tendered his defense to Wilcox’s insurer, Sentry Insurance Company. Sentry denied coverage, stating that it did not have a duty to defend or indemnify Hansen against Wilcox’s claims. Hansen subsequently filed suit seeking a declaration that Sentry owed a duty to defend and indemnify him with respect to Wilson’s complaint. The district court granted summary judgment for Wilcox, concluding that Hansen did not qualify as an “insured” under Wilcox’s policy. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Sentry owed no duty to defend or indemnify Hansen in the underlying litigation; and (2) there was no evidence in the record that would permit a reasonable jury to find that Sentry breached any contract with Hansen. View "Hansen v. Sentry Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In this insurance coverage dispute, the driver involved in an accident filed a claim with the Insurer of the other vehicle involved in the accident. The Insurer denied the claim. The Office of the Insurance Commissioner reviewed the denial and ordered the Insurer to adjust and resolve the claim. The Insurer did not file an appeal and instead filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in the federal district court. The district court dismissed the federal court action on res judicata grounds. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that res judicata barred this action and no exceptions to res judicata applied. View "Universal Ins. Co. v. Office of the Ins. Comm'r" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action suit in an Illinois circuit court against Ernida, LLC alleging that Ernida had faxed unsolicited advertisements to Plaintiff and more than thirty-nine other recipients without first obtaining their permission. Ernida’s insurer, American Economy Insurance Company (American), took up Ernida’s defense in Illinois. While the Illinois action was ongoing, Plaintiff filed suit in federal district court against American, asserting diversity jurisdiction and seeking a declaration that American had a duty to defend Ernida in the Illinois action and had a responsibility to indemnify and pay any judgment in that action. The district court granted American’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Plaintiff had not presented a justiciable controversy. On appeal, American claimed that Plaintiff’s claim did not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction since Plaintiff had expressly waived any right to recover anything over $75,000 in its Illinois complaint. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s order dismissing the case for lack of standing and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, as the matter in controversy did not not exceed the sum or value of $75,000. View "CE Design, Ltd. v. Am. Economy Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Katie Graf was injured on the premises of Fat Cat Bar & Grill. Graf was awarded $500,000 in damages and $111,124 in prejudgment interest against Torcia & Sons, Inc, the owner of Fat Cat. Torcia was insured by Hospitality Mutual Insurance Company under a liquor liability insurance policy. Hospitality disclaimed liability for the prejudgment interest portion of the award. Consequently, Graf was granted a writ of attachment on Torcia’s liquor license to secure the excess payment. Graf and Torcia sought payment from Hospitality for the cost of a bond to release the attachment. When Hospitality refused, the parties entered into a settlement agreement under which Graf discharged the attachment of the liquor license and Torcia assigned its rights against Hospitality to Graf. Graf sued Hospitality. A federal judge granted Hospitality’s motion to dismiss, concluding (1) the $500,000 damages award represented the full extent of recoverable proceeds under the policy, and (2) to require Hospitality to pay for the cost of the bond would have expanded Hospitality’s liability in contravention of the terms of the policy. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the policy unambiguously obligated Hospitality to pay the cost of bonds only for bond amounts that, together with any other liabilities, fell within the liability cap of $500,000. View "Graf v. Hospitality Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The lawsuit underlying this action alleged that Glynis McCormack’s ward sexually and physically abused a younger boy. In this declaratory judgment action, the district court ruled that Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company, McCormack’s insurer, had a duty to defend McCormack in the underlying lawsuit. Metropolitan appealed, arguing that the alleged harmful conduct was excluded from coverage under the governing policy. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that, under the facts of this case, McCormack’s policy would cover the harm alleged in the complaint, and therefore, Metropolitan had a duty to defend McCormack in the underlying action. View "Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. McCarthy" on Justia Law