Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Hyland was a passenger in a car owned by Perkins and driven by Smith, age 16. Smith smashed the car into two parked vehicles, seriously injuring Hyland. Smith was convicted of aggravated reckless driving. Neither Smith nor her parents had auto insurance. Perkins had insurance with Liberty Mutual, covering her family, including her daughter Risby and anyone driving the car with the family’s permission. Smith told Liberty Mutual that Risby gave her the keys during a party; Risby denied doing that and said that she gave the keys to “Rob,” who was never identified. The police reported that Smith told many incompatible stories. Liberty Mutual would not provide a defense or indemnity. Smith defaulted. A state court entered a $4.6 million judgment. Smith assigned to Hyland whatever claim she had against Liberty Mutual. The district court concluded that Liberty Mutual’s failure either to defend or to seek a declaratory judgment of non-coverage violated Illinois law, making it liable for the entire judgment, although the policy provided only $25,000 per person in coverage. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded for the entry of a judgment for $25,000 plus interest; damages for a breach of the duty to defend are measured by the consequences proximately caused by the breach. The maximum loss caused by this failure to defend is $25,000 View "Hyland v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Thorne has a property insurance policy with Member Select, which denied his claim for coverage after his Griffith, Indiana house burned down in 2008. Thorne chose not to rebuild the house and Member Select determined that either Thorne or his brother, who also lived in the house, intentionally set the fire. A jury awarded Thorne $87,000. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find that Thorne was a resident of the house, as required for recovery under the policy and for the jury to determine damages. The court also rejected an argument that the district court misinterpreted the policy’s loss coverage provision in evaluating whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s damages award. View "Thorne v. MemberSelect Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In this action challenging an insurance company’s doubling of Plaintiff’s insurance premium, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim, holding that Plaintiff was entitled to relief on her contract claim and that the allegations Plaintiff raised were enough to permit her to go forward on her other theories.When Plaintiff was sixty-seven years old, she discovered that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) more than doubled her insurance premium. Plaintiff brought this lawsuit against MetLife on behalf of herself and a proposed class, alleging breach of contract, deceptive and unfair business practices, and common-law fraud. The district court granted MetLife’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, concluding that the insurance policy unambiguously permitted MetLife to raise Plaintiff’s premium. The First Circuit disagreed, holding that the allegations raised in the complaint were enough to entitle Plaintiff to prevail on the liability phase of her contract claim and to go forward on her remaining claims. View "Newman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Risk retention groups (RRGs) insure only their owners. The Products Liability Risk Retention Act encourages manufacturers to pool their resources into RRGs and explicitly preempts state laws that inhibit the formation of RRGs. The subsequent Liability Risk Retention Act (LRRA) preempts any state law that would “make unlawful, or regulate, directly or indirectly, the operation of" an RRG, 15 U.S.C. 3902(a) and provides that only an RRG’s chartering state may regulate its formation and operation. If RRGs are “subject to that state’s insurance regulatory laws, including adequate rules and regulations allowing for complete financial examination of all books and records” they may operate in any state. Nonchartering states may require RRGs “to … demonstrate[e] financial responsibility" to obtain a license or permit to undertake specified activities but states are prohibited from “discriminating” against an out-of-state RRG. Restoration is a Vermont-chartered RRG for businesses that restore buildings after disasters. In Wisconsin, these businesses are regulated as “dwelling contractors” and must obtain an annual certificate of financial responsibility from the state Trades Credentialing Unit (TCU), by proof of a “policy of general liability insurance issued by an insurer authorized to do business in [Wisconsin].” Since 2006, Wisconsin dwelling contractors could meet this requirement by securing insurance from Restoration. In 2015, TCU changed its position so that none of Restoration’s Wisconsin shareholder‐insureds could rely on Restoration to satisfy the state liability insurance requirements. The Seventh Circuit vacated a judgment rejecting Restoration’s challenge to the ruling and remanded for a determination of whether intervening amendments to the statute render the litigation moot. View "Restoration Risk Retention Group, Inc. v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

After the Garcias bought their Lake Station Property in 2004, it was used as an automobile repair shop and a day spa. It previously was used as a dry cleaning facility and contained six underground storage tanks: four were used for petroleum-based Stoddard solvent, one was used for gasoline, and the last for heating oil. In 1999, the dry cleaning company reported a leak from the Stoddard tanks to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM). In 2000, a site investigation was conducted and five groundwater monitoring wells were installed. IDEM requested additional information and testing in 2001 and 2004. The Garcias claim they had no knowledge of the preexisting environmental contamination before insuring with Atlantic. A 2014 letter from Environmental Inc. brought the contamination to the Garcias’ attention. The Garcias hired Environmental to investigate and learned that Perchloroethylene solvent and heating oil still affected the property. Atlantic obtained a declaration that its Commercial General Liability Coverage (CGL) policies did not apply. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, reading a “Claims in Process” exclusion to preclude coverage for losses or claims for damages arising out of property damage—known or unknown—that occurred or was in the process of occurring before the policy’s inception. View "Atlantic Casualty Insurance Co v. Garcia" on Justia Law

West Side was working on ConAgra’s grain bin when it exploded. In 2014, the Seventh Circuit held that West Side was solely liable for the injuries that workers suffered in the explosion and was liable for $3 million in property damage to ConAgra’s bin. West Side had an $11 million excess insurance policy with RSUI. West Side sued, alleging that RSUI breached its duty to settle ConAgra’s property damage claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of RSUI. Under Illinois law, the damage-to-property clause excludes the claim from coverage. RSUI had no duty to settle a claim that the insurance policy does not cover. Holding otherwise would undermine the basic premise of the damage-to-property exclusion: that general liability policies are not intended to protect the insured from the normal risks of its business. The damage that West Side caused was one of the normal risks associated with its business of remedying hot grain bins before they explode. Even if West Side was only working on the grain when the explosion occurred, it is immaterial. The exclusion does not apply only to the precise area of the property being worked on if the work performed was poor. View "West Side Salvage, Inc. v. RSUI Indemnity Co." on Justia Law

In 2002, Toulon applied for Continental’s long-term care insurance policy. Continental provided a Long-Term Care Insurance Personal Worksheet to help Toulon determine whether the policy would work for her, given her financial circumstances. The Worksheet discussed Continental’s right to increase premiums and how such increases had previously been applied. Toulon did not fill out the Worksheet but signed and submitted it with her application. Toulon’s Policy stated that although Continental could not cancel the Policy if each premium was paid on time, Continental could change the premium rates. There was a rider, stating that premiums would not be increased during the first 10 years after the coverage date. In September 2013, Continental raised Toulon’s premiums by 76.5%. Toulon sued, on behalf of herself and a purported class. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal, agreeing that Toulon failed to state claims for fraudulent misrepresentation because she did not identify a false statement or for fraudulent omission because Continental did not owe Toulon a duty to disclose. The court also properly dismissed Toulon’s claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act (ICFA) because she did not identify a deceptive practice, a material omission, or an unfair practice. The unjust enrichment claim failed because claims of fraud and statutory violation, upon which Toulon's unjust enrichment claim was based, were legally insufficient and an express contract governed the parties’ relationship. View "Toulon v. Continental Casualty Co." on Justia Law

The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's judgment in an action filed by an insurance company seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend the insured. The court held that it was the insured's responsibility to notify the insurance company that he had been in an accident that might lead to a claim; he failed to do so and his failure was inexcusable under Illinois law; and thus the insurance company had no duty to defend or indemnify the insured in the personal injury suit arising out of the accident. Accordingly, the insurance company was entitled to declaratory relief. View "State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Brumit Services, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2009, Bancorp, which provides checking and savings accounts to individuals, purchased a bankers’ professional liability insurance policy from Federal. The policy stated: [Federal] shall pay, on behalf of an Insured, Loss on account of any Claim first made against such Insured during the Policy Period … for a Wrongful Act committed by an Insured or any person for whose acts the Insured is legally liable while performing Professional Services, including failure to perform Professional Services" but that Federal “shall not be liable for Loss on account of any Claim … based upon, arising from, or in consequence of any fees or charges” (Exclusion 3(n)). The 2010 Swift Complaint sought damages for Bancorp's "unfair and unconscionable assessment and collection of excessive overdraft fees.” Swift sought to represent a class of all U.S. BancorpSouth customers who "incurred an overdraft fee as a result of BancorpSouth’s practice of re-sequencing debit card transactions from highest to lowest.” In 2016, Bancorp agreed to pay $24 million to resolve all the claims, $8.4 million of which was for attorney’s fees, plus $500,000 in class administrative costs. Federal denied coverage. The Seventh Circuit agreed that Exclusion 3(n) excluded from coverage losses arising from fees and affirmed the dismissal of breach of contract claims and a bad faith claim. View "BancorpSouth Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co." on Justia Law

From 2006-2012 Packerland deceived at least one of its customers about the protein content of its Whey Protein Concentrate. Land O’Lakes purchased Packerland’s protein concentrate for use in making foods for calves and other young animals. Buyers infer protein levels from measuring nitrogen: a seller can add another nitrogen-rich substance to produce higher scores. The Ratajczaks, who owned Packerland, started adding urea to its protein concentrate. in 2006. Land O’Lakes suspected that the concentrate was high in nonprotein nitrogen but could not learn why; the Ratajczaks made excuses that Land O’Lakes accepted. The Ratajczaks sold Packerland in 2012. The new owner kept them as employees; they kept adding urea until the buyer learned what the truth. The Ratajczaks lost their jobs and settled for about $10 million before the buyer filed a complaint. Land O’Lakes stopped buying Packerland’s product and asserted claims of breach of contract, fraud, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Packerland’s insurers refused to defend or indemnify it or the Ratajczaks; the Ratajczaks’ personal insurer refused to indemnify them for their settlement with Packerland’s buyer. The district court dismissed Land O’Lakes’s suit and ruled in favor of the insurers. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Land O’Lakes’ claim to treble damages under RICO and state-law and the Ratajczaks’ claims that Packerland’s insurers and their own insurers had to defend and indemnify them. View "Land O'Lakes, Inc. v. Ratajczak" on Justia Law