In Blue Compass RV, L.L.C. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co., the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a $1.25 million crime-insurance suit,

After receiving a phishing email purporting to be from its construction contractor, an RV dealer updated the contractor’s payment information and remitted a progress payment to the fraudster’s account. The dealer’s insurance arrier paid the smaller sub-limit  for deception fraud involving the “purchase of goods or services,” rather than a larger limit. The dispute turned on whether the contractor’s construction work was a sale of “services” within that sub-limit.

The court rejected the insured’s argument that “services” should be read narrowly to mean only “useful labor that does not produce a tangible commodity.” Although some dictionary definitions support that reading, the Court concluded that in the context of the policy as a whole, a broader ordinary meaning controlled. Under that meaning, the contractor’s construction work qualified as services even though its end product was a tangible building. No. 25-10894 (June 5, 2026).

A frequently reversed issue in commercial cases before the Fifth Circuit is contract ambiguity. The newest example is Porch.com v. Gallagher Re, where a contract term required an insurance broker to provide “Administrative Services,” defined to include “all servicing duties customarily performed by a reinsurance intermediary-broker after the placement of the reinsurance contract, including but not limited to . . . administering all reserve funding.”

The insured alleged that its reinsurance broker failed to recognize the difference between a mere collateral letter and a letter of credit—the specific instrument that the reinsurance contract called for—and then repeatedly misrepresented the collateral as valid.

The district court dismissed the claim, reasoning that the insured’s allegations related only to the initial placement of reinsurance. The Fifth Circuit disagreed, concluding that the contract term was, at a minimum, ambiguous as to the broker’s duties, explaining that “it is at least reasonable to interpret that provision as including [the broker’s] duties with respect to the letter of credit.”

The Court also emphasized that determination of what servicing duties are “customarily performed” by a reinsurance intermediary-broker is a fact question that cannot properly be resolved on a motion to dismiss. In so doing, the Court rejected the broker’s argument that the insured was seeking to transform purely ministerial tasks into broad duties to investigate the solvency of third parties. The Court found that the complaint simply alleged that the broker did not perform the routine administrative oversight contemplated by the contract’s broad language. No. 25-10489 (Apr. 2, 2026).

A Louisiana statute requires that cancellation of an insurance policy be done in a certain way; the Fifth Circuit affirmed judgment for the insurer in Williams v. GoAuto Ins. Co.: “What is necessary prior to cancellation is that the insurer had “receipt” of notice of cancellation sent by the premium finance company. … This is a modern statute set in current times, and company computers do much that individuals once did. GoAuto’s method of receiving the notice and reacting to it satisfies the statute.” No. 24-30646 (Oct. 3, 2025).

In the case of Wilson v. Kemper Corp. Servcs., the Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion to remand, because the non-diverse defendant was properly joined.

The Court emphasized that under Mississippi law, the “duty to read” doctrine did not bar the plaintiff’s negligence claim against that defedndant. The Court further explained that the district court’s reliance on Maria Wilson’s affidavit, which admitted her illiteracy and inability to read the policy, was insufficient by itself to establish improper joinder, especially when the policy’s language was ambiguous and did not explicitly require the plainitff to reside in the house to be covered. No. 24-60090, Apr. 11, 2025.

In McDonnell Grouo, LLC v. Starr Surplus Lines Ins. Co., the Fifth Circuit addressed the perennial topic of contract ambiguity; in this case, in the context of a builder’s risk insurance policy. The court affirmed the district court ‘s conclusion that the flood deductible provision in the policy was ambiguous.

The ambiguity arose from the language: “5% of the total insured values at risk at the time and place of loss subject to a $500,000 minimum deduction as respects … FLOOD.” The plaintiffs and the insurers had reasonable interpretations of this provision, but extrinsic evidence, in the form of industry standards and expert testimony, resolved the ambiguity. That extrinsic evidence clarified the term “VARTOL” (value-at-risk-at-time-of-loss) to mean the total value of the project at the time of loss, favoring the insurers’ interpretation. No. 23-30824, Jan. 29, 2025.

In TIG Ins. Co. v. Woodsboro Farmers Coop., the Fifth Circuit identified fact issues that precluded summary judgment in an insurance-coverage case.

A key is whether damage to certain grain silos was “property damage” under a CGL policy. The diistrict court concluded that damage was due to defective construction. The Fifth Circuit credited the insured’s evidence that wind and weather caused the silos’ metal parts to degrade, bend, and fatigue. This evidence, including testimony from an inspector who saw the damage, supported the insured’s argument that the damage was not merely cosmetic but a “harmful change in appearance, shape, composition, or some other physical dimension to the claimants’ property.”

The Court also noted a fact issue about whether the damage occurred during the policy period, emphasizing that under Texas law, “occurred means when damage occurred, not when discovery occurred,” making it irrelevant that the damage was first observed after the policy period expired. No. 23-40435, Sept. 20, 2024.

In Century Surety Co. v. Colgate Operating, LLC:

• The parties’ contract required Colgate (an oil well operator) and Triangle (a consultant) “to purchase indemnity insurance with limits the lesser of (1) ‘not less than $5 million’, or (2) ‘the maximum amount which may be required by law, if any, without rendering this mutual indemnification obligation void, unenforceable or otherwise inoperative.'”
• Clause 2 referred to a potential legislative restriction on indemnity agreement that didn’t come to pass.
• The district court say Clause 1 as setting a ceiling but not a floor on the indemnity obligation, but the Fifth Circuit saw the clause as setting both: “At heart, Century’s position assumes that Colgate set out a $76 million dollar indemnity obligation without clearly saying so in the contract by virtue of policies that Colgate acquired years after it had entered into the [contract].”

No. 23-50530 (Sept. 10, 2024).

SKAV, LLC, the operator of a Best Western hotel in Abbeville, Louisiana, sued a surplus-lines insurer about a hurricane-damage claim. The insurer sought to compel arbitration, based on a Louisiana statute that says:

A. No insurance contract delivered or issued for delivery in this state and covering subjects located, resident, or to be performed in this state, or any group health and accident policy insuring a resident of this state regardless of where made or delivered, shall contain any condition, stipulation, or agreement ..

    (2) Depriving the courts of this state of the jurisdiction or venue of action against the insurer. …

D. The provisions of Subsection A of this Section shallnot prohibit a forum or venue selection clause in a policy form that is not subject to approval by the Department of Insurance.

Acknowledging differing approaches by district courts to examine this issue, the Fifth Circuit held in SKAV, LLC v. Indep. Specialty Ins. Co. that section (a)(2) of this statute applied to arbitration, and was not affected by section (D), which was fairly read as limited to forum and venue-selection clauses. No. 23-30293 (June 5, 2024).

In a dispute about insurance coverage for a freak accident at a drag-racing event, the Fifth Circuit rejected the argument that the policy was ambiguous, reasoning:

“[W]e must construe every part of the CGL Policy—the CGL Declaration, the CGL Form, and the CGL Endorsements simultaneously. So construed, the CGL Policy is not ambiguous.

Begin by considering the relationship between the CGL Form and the CGL Endorsements. Generalia specialibus non derogant. Given that the CGL Form provides general statements regarding coverage, a CGL Endorsement’s more specific statement regarding the same will control where the two conflict. … 

As the CDE Endorsement and MV Endorsement illustrate, the CGL Endorsements modify express subsets of provisions in the CGL Form. They do not, however, expressly purport to modify the CGL Declaration, other provisions in the CGL Form, or other CGL Endorsements. So, relative to the CGL Form, each of the CGL Endorsements addresses a narrower set of provisions in greater detail.

Kinsale Ins. Co. v. Flyin Diesel Performance & Offroad, LLC, No. 23-50336 (April 26, 2024).

After a massive computer failure, Southwest sued one of its cyber risk insures about five categories of damages (vouchers, frequent-flier miles, etc. used to mitigate the effects of the outage). The district court ruled against Southwest, describing the losses as arising from “purely discretionary” decisions.

The Fifth Circuit reversed. Acknowledging that the policy covered “all Loss … that in Insured incurs … solely as a result of a System Failure,” the Court reasoned:

Here, Liberty argues that the system failure cannot be the sole cause of Southwest’s claimed costs because the “independent” and “more direct” cause of those losses was Southwest’s decision to incur them. But those decisions can only be independent, sole causes of the costs if they were the precipitating causes of the costs. The decisions, like the infection in Wright or the medical complications in Wells, were not precipitating causes that competed with the system failure, but links in a causal chain that led back to the system failure. 

Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded. Southwest Airlines Co. v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc., No. 22-10942 (Jan. 16, 2024). The Court noted that “[t]he parties concede that there are no cases directly on point in the context of business interruption insurance.”

The concurrent causation doctrine precluded recovery under an insurance policy for alleged hurricane damage in Shree Rama, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co.:

Shree Rama did not carry its burden under the concurrent causation doctrine. The policy issued by Mt. Hawley explicitly covers damage from wind and explicitly excludes damage from wear and tear. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Shree Rama, it is possible that some damage to the hotel roof came from Hurricane Hanna and some from wear and tear. But the concurrent causation doctrine requires Shree Rama to provide the jury with “a reasonable basis” for allocating the damage between wind and wear and tear. . Shree Rama provided no reasonable basis. To the contrary, Shree Rama admitted at the district court level that its causation expert “could not definitively attribute [specific damages to the roof] to Hurricane Hanna when deposed.” Without a basis for allocating damages between covered and non- covered causes, Mt. Hawley was entitled to summary judgment.

No. 23-40123 (Dec. 14, 2023) (citations omitted).

Princeton Excess & Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. A.H.D. Houston, Inc. addresses – coverage – in strip clubs, holding that the clubs are – exposed.

As with Jan Tiffany’s burlesque act of the 1950s (right), matters “largely turn[ed] on whether the … coverage should be viewed as one ‘umbrella’ of coverage or carved into subcategories … .”

The specific issue involved insurance coverage for damages arising from unauthorized use of models’ photos, and turned on construction of the policies’ exclusions to “advertising injury” coverage. A dissent would certify the issue to the Texas Supreme Court.  No. 22-20473 (Aug. 25, 20230.

A boat sank during a hurricane, leading to an insurance-coverage dispute about whether the boat was in not located in the place warranted by the insured.

The insurance policy at issue had two “incorporation” clauses. “The first provides that ‘[t]his insuring agreement incorporates in full [Gray Group’s] application for insurance[.]’ The second states that ‘[t]his is a legally binding insurance document between [Gray Group] and [Great Lakes], incorporating in full the application form signed by [Gray Group].'”

The Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that these clauses were ambiguous as to what specific documents were referenced. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, though, the extrinsic evidence showed that the parties intended “application for insurance” to include a document about the boat’s location–and thus, made a warranty that the boat would be in New Orleans during hurricane season. Great Lakes Ins. v. Gray Group Investments, LLC, No. 22-30041 (Aug. 1, 2023).

The question in Allstate Fire & Casualty Co. v. Love was whether “the amount of an insurancy policy or the underlying claim determines the amount in controversy to establish diversity jurisdiction ….” The Court addressed, and clarified, earlier Circuit precedent on that generaly topic, and went on to hold that in this case: “where the claim under the policy exceeds the value of the policy limit, courts … should ask whether there is a legal possibility that the insurer could be subject to liability in excess of the policy limit” (a Stowers claim having been made in this dispute). No. 22-20405 (June 22, 2023).

Central Crude, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual confirms that under Louisiana law, a pollution exclusion doesn’t require the insured to have the ultimate fault for the alleged pollution:

Neither the CGL policy nor [the Louisiana Supreme Court’s opinion in Doerr] requires identification of the party at fault for the oil spill in determining whether the total pollution exclusion applies here. The CGL policy’s total pollution exclusion broadly precludes coverage for bodily injury or property damage that “would not have occurred in whole or in part but for the actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of ‘pollutants’ at any time.” The provision requires a dispersal of pollutants but makes no requirement that the party responsible for the dispersal be determined. 

No. 21-30707 (Oct. 26, 2022).

Among other issues from an insurance-coverage case arising from a building collapse, in Hudson Specialty Ins. Co. v. Talex Enterprises, LLC, the Fifth Circuit considered whether the expense of fire and police personnel was “maintenance” within the meaning of a policy exclusion. The Court found that term ambiguous as to those expenses, and thus construed it against the insurer:

The City paid for the around-the-clock presence of its fire and police personnel to protect the integrity of the site and keep people out.

On the one hand, it is reasonable to read this police and fire department presence as maintenance. By keeping watch over the site and keeping people out, these public safety officials were “upholding or keeping in being” the property in its current state. This aligns with one of the definitions of maintenance listed above.

On the other hand, the definitions of maintenance as “[t]he action of keeping something in working order” or “[t]he care and work put into property” both imply that actions are taken upon the property to keep it in working order. Keeping watch is an action, but it is not performed upon the property and does not involve putting work into the property. Thus, there are at least two reasonable meanings for the term maintenance—one where these expenses would fall under the exclusion and one where they would not.

No. 21-60794 (Oct. 28, 2022) (paragraph breaks added).

In a COVID-19 coverage case, the appellant in Coleman E. Adler & Sons v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co. tried to avoid earlier Fifth Circuit precedent by pointing to a recent opinion from an intermediate Louisiana appellate court. The Fifth Circuit did not accept the appellant’s argument, noting:

1. Orderliness. “Our court’s rule of orderliness applies to Erie cases no less than cases interpreting federal law.”
2. Erie. “[T]here has been ‘neither a clearly contrary subsequent holding of the highest court of [Louisiana] nor a subsequent statutory authority, squarely on point.’ Nor has there been contrary intervening precedent that ‘comprises unanimous or near-unanimous holdings from several—preferably a majority —of the intermediate appellate courts of [Louisiana].’ We have only one subsequent decision from an intermediate state court, and that cannot overcome our rule of orderliness.” (citations omitted).

No. 21-30478 (Sept. 20, 2022).

In Dune, Duke Leto Atreides cautions his son about the family’s move to Arrakis, telling him to watch for “a feint within a feint within a feint…seemingly without end.” In that spirit, Advanced Indicator & Mfg. v. Acadia Ins. Co. analyzed a complex removal issue, noting:

• “Ordinarily, diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity—if any plaintiff is a citizen of the same State as any defendant, then diversity jurisdiction does not exist.”
• “‘However, if the plaintiff improperly joins a non-diverse defendant, then the court may disregard the citizenship of that defendant, dismiss the non-diverse defendant from the case, and exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining diverse defendant.’ … A defendant may establish improper joinder in two ways: ‘(1) actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts, or (2) inability of the plaintiff to establish a cause of action against the non-diverse party in state court.’”
• But see: “[T]he voluntary-involuntary rule … dictates that ‘an action nonremovable when commenced may become removable thereafter only by the voluntary act of the plaintiff.’”

These principles applied to this situation:  Advanced Indicator (a Texas business) sued Acadia Insurance (diverse) and its Texas-based insurance agent (not-diverse). But after suit was filed, Acadia invoked a Texas statute “which provides that should an insurer accept responsibility for its agent after suit is filed, ‘the court shall dismiss the action against the agent with prejudice.'”

The Fifth Circuit, noting different district-court opinions about this statute and carefully reviewing its own precedents, concluded that “because [the agent] was improperly joined at the time of removal, Acadia’s removal was proper.” No. 21-20092 (Oct. 3, 2022) (emphasis added, citations removed).

Overstreet v. Allstate, an insurance-coverage case about hail damage, presented an unsettled issue under Texas’ “concurrent causation” doctrine. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit hailed the Texas Supreme Court for assistance, certifying the issue to it for review (a topic where the Fifth Circuit had previously certified the same topic, only for the parties to settle). No. 21-10462 (May 19, 2022). (As is customary for such requests, the Court disclaimed any intention to hale the Texas Supreme Court toward any particular result.)

Making an Erie guess about Louisiana insurance law, the Fifth Circuit held: “Consistent with our decision in Terry Black’s, and the decisions of the unanimous circuit courts, we conclude, pursuant to Louisiana law, that losses caused by civil authority orders closing nonessential businesses in response to the COVID-19 pandemic do not fall within the meaning of ‘direct physical loss of or damage to property.'” Q Clothier v. Twin City Fire Ins., No. 21-30278 (March 22, 2022).

Hurricane Harvey insurance litigation continues. The dispute in Landmark Am. Ins. Co. v. SCD Mem. Place II, LLC involved a “named perils” policy, one of which was “Windstorm or Hail associated with a Named Storm.” While the unfortunate insured experienced significant damage when Buffalo Bayou overflowed its banks and flooded the insured’s property, it did not experience any wind or hail damage. The Fifth Circuit sided with the insured, holding that “[t]his framing sets up ‘Windstorm’ and ‘Hail’ as specific perils that may be associated with a number of weather events rather than as weather events that may encompass any number of perils.” No. 20-20389 (Feb. 3, 2022)

A high-profile case about a child’s gruesome accident produced considerable media coverage, but the insurer’s awareness of that coverage did not satisfy the insurance policy’s “claim” requirement: “The fact that [the insured] became aware of media reports about Braylon’s injuries and sent those reports to Evanston, which in turn opened an internal ‘Claim/Occurrence’ file and monitored further developments, does not substitute for the Jordans actually making a timely claim against M&O. Their failure to do so is fatal to their assertion of coverage.” Jordan v. Evanston Ins. Co., No. 20-60716 (Jan. 17, 2022).

Terry Black’s Barbecue provides outstanding Texas barbecue from its location in Dallas’s Deep Ellum neighborhood; it also experienced business interruptions from complying with various stay-at-home orders issued during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion that Terry Black’s did not have business-interruption coverage because it did not suffer a direct physical loss of property at its restaurants. The Court reasoned:

…  A “physical loss of property” cannot mean something as broad as the “loss of use of property for its intended purpose.” None of those words fall within the plain meaning of physical, loss, or property. And that phrase has an entirely different meaning from the language in the BI/EE provision. “Physical loss of property” is not synonymous with “loss of use of property for its intended purpose.”
We conclude the Texas Supreme Court would interpret a direct physical loss of property to require a tangible alteration or deprivation of property. Because the civil authority orders prohibiting dine-in services at restaurants did not tangibly alter TBB’s restaurants, and TBB having failed to allege any other tangible alteration or deprivation of its property, the policy does not provide coverage for TBB’s claimed losses.

Terry Black’s Barbecue BBQ, LLC v. State Automobile Mut. Ins. Co., No. 21-50078 (Jan. 5, 2022).

In Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., both the Great American and Employers’ umbrella policies were “excess,” in that they both provided coverage for liability “in excess” of a “retained limit.” That said . . .

• the Employers’ policy defined “retained limit” as “the available limits of all ‘underlying insurance,'” a term that was, in turn, defined by two descriptions of primary coverage; while
• the Great American policy defined “retained limit” to include “the applicable limits of any other insurance providing coverage to the ‘Insured’ during the Policy Period.” (emphasis added).

Thus, “[b]ased on the plain terms of these policies, the Great American Umbrella Policy was the true excess policy after all other policies.” No. 20-11113 (Nov. 17, 2021).

A New Orleans bar was sued after two patrons were stabbed by another, underaged patron who had been drinking at the bar. The insurance company denied coverage under a “weapons” exclusion (reaching “instruments of an offensive or defensive nature and include but are not limited to batons, bow or crossbow [?!], arrows, knives, mace, stun guns, tasers, or swords.” The Fifth Circuit affirmed judgment for the insurer:

“The district court described the claims of negligence in state court as Funky 544’s failure to require patron identifications and, more generally, its failure to prevent underage drinking. Even so, an element of each of [the plaintiffs’] claims is that Funky 544’s negligence caused them to be injured by a knife. … The term in this exclusion of ‘arising out of’ the use of weapons unambiguously provides that for coverage, an injury must be entirely separate from those relating to the use of weapons.”

Funky 544, LLC v. Houston Specialty Ins. Co., No. 21-30310 (Oct. 22, 2021) (unpublished).

Zurich won an insurance coverage dispute with Maxim Crane. On appeal, in addition to defending the merits, Zurich argued that the matter should be dismissed entirely because Maxim lacked standing. This argument led to the question whether a cross-appeal was needed to make that point, and the Fifth Circuit concluded:

… although our judgment would be different if we credited Zurich’s standing argument, that does not mean that Zurich needed to file a cross-appeal to present that argument. To be sure, as a matter of standard appellate practice, “[m]any cases state the general rule that a cross-appeal is required to support modification of the judgment,” whereas “arguments that support the judgment as entered can be made without a cross-appeal.” (quoting [Wright & Miller]). But this case falls within an exception to that general rule. A cross-appeal “is not necessary to challenge the subject-matter jurisdiction of the district court, under the well-established rule that both district court and appellate courts are obliged to raise such questions on their own initiative.” Id.

Maxim Crane Works LP v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 19-20489 (Aug. 20, 2021) (ultimately, certifying the underlying coverage issue to the Texas Supreme Court).

The plaintiffs in Turner v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. obtained a “non-adversarial” default judgment against a defunct vocational school. The Fifth Circuit found that Texas’s “no-direct action” rule did not bar their claim against the school’s insurer: “[T]he Plaintiffs’ default judgment against ATI is an adjudication that satisfies the no-action clause. Accordingly, although the non-adversarial default judgment does not bind Cincinnati to its terms,  the no-direct-action rule is not a bar to this coverage suit.” (citation omitted). (Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, the Court then affirmed the dismissal of their claim on timeliness grounds.) No. 20-50548 (Aug. 13, 2021).

The relevant policy language in a data-breach coverage dispute provided insurance for:
In Landry’s, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of the State of Penn., the Fifth Circuit found that this language created coverage, observing, inter alia:

• “Publication”: “[C]overage is triggered by a ‘publication, in any manner.’ It follows that the Policy intended to use every definition of the word ‘publication’—even the very broadest ones. And some of the dictionary definitions of ‘publication’ are quite broad.”
• Scope: “[T]he Policy does not simply extend to violations of privacy rights; the Policy instead extends to all injuries that arise out of such violations. … [I]t’s undisputed that a person has a ‘right of privacy’ in his or her credit-card data.” (emphasis in original).
• Injury: “[E]veryone agrees that the facts alleged in the Paymentech complaint constitute an injury arising from the violation of customers’ privacy rights, as those terms are commonly understood. It does not matter that Paymentech’s legal theories sound in contract rather than tort. Nor does it matter that Paymentech (rather than individual customers) sued Landry’s. Paymentech’s alleged injuries arise from the violations of customers’ rights to keep their credit-card data private.”

The Fifth Circuit harmonized two insurance-policy provisions in Miller v. Reliance Std. Ins. Co.:

“[T]he phrase ‘active, full-time’ employees must be construed in the insured’s favor to include those who, on the relevant date, are current employees even if not actually working. We also agree that the term ‘regular work week’ must be construed to refer to an employee’s job description, or to his typical workload when on duty.

 

To hold otherwise, as Reliance urges, would render the second paragraph of the Transfer Provision virtually redundant with the first. On Reliance’s reading, the paragraph would cover employees who actually maintain a full-time work schedule at the time of transfer. But this is barely different, if at all, from the previous paragraph’s provision for employees who at the time are ‘Actively at Work,’ defined to mean ‘actually performing on a Full-time basis the material duties pertaining to his/her job'[.]

 

Effectively, Reliance’s reading is that the second paragraph covers employees who are not “actually performing” work duties but are ‘otherwise’ actually working. We reject this convoluted construction as the unambiguous meaning of the provision.”

No. 20-30240 (June 2, 2021) (emphasis in original, breaks added).

During Hurricane Harvey, “to prevent the Lake Conroe Dam from overflowing and failing, the San Jacinto River Authority released from the dam 79,141 cubic feet of water per second—nearly the flow rate of Niagara Falls.” The resulting surge of water destroyed 22 boat slips owned by a condo association, which sought to recover from its insurer. The Fifth Circuit affirmed judgment for the condo association, noting:

• legally, while the policy’s Flood Endorsement says: “We will not pay for loss or damage caused by ‘flood’, arising from . . . [a h]urricane or tropical storm,” it defined a “flood” as “a general and temporary condition of partial or
  complete inundation of 2 or more acres of normally dry land areas or of 2 or
  more distinct parcels of land (at least one of which is your property) with
  water”–and thus does not reach the boat slips, which were on water;
• factually, the association offered evidence that the water release “created a suction effect, like a sink drain that is unplugged, but on a much greater scale. Because of the rate at which water was being released, the water on the north side of [the] lake (where the Boat Slips are located) was below normal levels afterwards, despite the rainfall brought by Harvey.”

Playa Vista Conroe v. Ins. Co. of the West, No. 20-20307 (March 5, 2021).

A class of plaintiffs settled with several insurance companies, resolving various disputes about a large sinkhole caused by years of salt mining by Texas Brine Co. Texas Brine objected to the settlement and the Fifth Circuit found that it lacked standing to do so. While “[n]on-settling parties generally lack standing to object to a settlement agreement,” “[a] potential exception exists ‘if the settlement agreement purports tot strip non-settling defendants of rights to contribution or indemnity.” Here, Texas Brine did not not have any right to indemnification or contribution from these insurers for the remaining claims, so it lacked standing to object to the settlement. LeBlanc v. Texas Brine Co., LLC, No. 20-30208 (March 1, 2021).

Mississippi Silicon (“MSH”), a manufacturer, was tricked into paying approximately $1 million to a cybercriminal, believing that it was in fact paying one of its regular vendors.  MSH sought reimbursement under the “Computer Transfer Fraud” provision of an insurance policy, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion that there was no coverage.

The provision said: “The insurer will pay for loss of . . . Covered Property resulting directly from Computer Transfer Fraud that causes the transfer, payment, or delivery of Covered Property from the Premises or Transfer Account to a person, place, or account beyond the Insured Entity’s control, without the Insured Entity’s knowledge or consent.”

But here: “Coverage under the Computer Transfer Fraud provision is available only when a computer-based fraud scheme causes a transfer of funds without the Insured’s knowledge or consent. Here, three MSH employees affirmatively authorized the transfer; it therefore cannot be said that the fraud caused a transfer without the
company’s knowledge. … [T]he agreement plainly limits coverage to instances in which the transfer is made without knowledge or consent.” 

Mississippi Silicon Holdings v. Axis Ins. Co., No. 20-60215 (Feb. 4, 2021) (all emphasis in original).

At issue in Big Binder Express LLC v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. was the meaning of the term “you.” The Fifth Circuit concluded that the term “you” in the key endorsement about a large deductible, when given its “ordinary and generally accepted meaning,” referred only the named insured and not additional insureds. The Court also rejected the insured’s argument that “damages” meant only a court award of damages. No. 20-60188 (Jan. 27, 2021).

Following two recent opinions about Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), the Fifth Circuit again applied it in Waste Management v. AIG: “We need not resolve this dispute because, even assuming that an adjuster can be held liable under [the] Texas Insurance Code . . . Waste did not allege facts that, taken as true, demonstrate a violation of these provisions. The only relevant, AIG Claims-specific facts that Waste alleged in its
complaint are that (1) AIG Claims served as the adjuster for ASIC and (2) ‘On July 9, 2013, AIG Claims sent Waste Management a letter denying [certain] coverage . . . .’ These threadbare factual allegations, along with Waste’s conclusory recitation of the elements of a claim under the Texas Insurance Code, are insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Notably, Waste did not allege that AIG Claims failed to investigate, delayed any investigation, misevaluated, misprocessed, made any misrepresentation of the policy, or otherwise failed to ‘effectuate’ a fair settlement.” (citations omitted).

For insurance-coverage lawyers, State Farm Lloyds v. Richards represents another case in which the Fifth Circuit concludes that “the eight-corners rule applies here; the ‘very narrow exception’ does not,” and then finds that the relevant pleading “contains
allegations within its four corners that potentially constitute a claim within the four corners of the policy.” No. 18-10721 (July 19, 2020).

For fans of legal typography, State Farm Lloyds represents a daring new look – stylish, yet readable!

Soren Kierkegaard wondered, “What is the Absurd?” Contemporary artist Michael Cheval creates thought-provoking works of absurdist art (to the right, “Echo of Misconception” (2015)). And the Fifth Circuit plumbed the meaning of the absurd in Geovera Specialty Ins. Co. v. Joachin, No. 19-30604 (July 6, 2020), in a coverage dispute about a homeowners’ insurance policy, bserving: “Absurdity requires a result ‘that no reasonable person could approve.’ An insurance policy is thus absurd if it ‘exclude[s] all coverage’ from the outset. So is one that broadly excludes coverage without reasonable limitations. But the GeoVera policy is not absurd on its face. The policy makes perfect sense for a  homeowner who purchases it while already living in the home.”  No. 19-30605 (July 6, 2020) (citations omitted).

Rules of procedure require precision in pleading a cause of action. The eight-corners rule of insurance coverage, in contrast, often rewards imprecision. A powerful example appears in Allied World Specialty Ins. Co. v. McCathern, PLLC, a duty-to-defend claim arising from a legal malpractice claim, where the Fifth Circuit held: “The allegations that McCathern did not monitor the file, conduct legal research, or communicate with the client are factual assertions—as opposed to causes of action—even if they are vague. Allied World’s challenge to the factual allegations thus seems to be that they are not specific enough or may not prove true. But at the duty-to-defend stage it is not for us to say whether West Star will be able to prove that McCathern was negligent in failing to monitor the personal injury suit or in failing to research legal issues.” No. 17-10615 (Feb. 26, 2020, unpublished).

An insurance company drew the Fifth Circuit’s ire (“Only an insurance company could come up with the policy interpretation advanced here”) in a dispute about coverage for a collision caused by drunk driving. The insurer argued “that drunk driving collisions are not ‘accidents,’ because the decision to drink (and then later drive) was intentional—even though there was admittedly no intent to collide with another vehicle. As Cincinnati points out, a jury found that Sanchez intentionally decided to drive while intoxicated, with ‘actual, subjective awareness’ of the ‘extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others.'” The Court found this argument inconsistent with the common meaning of the term “accident,” and further noted that under this reading of the policy: “[A] collision caused by texting while driving would also not be an accident. A collision caused by eating while driving would not be an accident. And a collision caused by doing makeup while driving would not be an accident.” Frederking v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 18-50536 (July 2, 2019).

In SEC v. Stanford Int’l Bank, Ltd., the Fifth Circuit reviewed an intricate, court-supervised settlement between the receiver for Stanford International Bank and several D&O carriers, and “conclude[d] the district court lacked authority to approve the Receiver’s settlement to the extent it (a) nullified the coinsureds’ claims to the policy proceeds without an alternative compensation scheme; (b) released claims the Estate did not possess; and (c) barred suits that could not result in judgments against proceeds of the Underwriters’ policies or other receivership assets.”

The Court observed: “By ignoring the distinction between Appellants’ contractual and extracontractual claims against Underwriters, the district court erred legally and abused its discretion in approving the bar orders. These claims . . . lie directly against the Underwriters and do not involve proceeds from the insurance policies or other receivership assets. . . . [R]eceivership courts have no authority to dismiss claims that are unrelated to the receivership estate. That the district court was ‘looking only to the fairness of the settlement as between the debtor and the settling claimant [and ignoring third-party rights] contravenes a basic notion of fairness.'” No. 17-10663 (June 17, 2019).

Ekhlassi sued National Lloyds in Texas state court for a flood-insurance claim, arising out of a “Write Your Own” insurance policy issued in the carrier’s name but underwritten by the federal government. His filing may have satisfied the one-year statute of limitations for such a claim – the parties disputed the trigger event – but his choice of a state forum proved fatal. The panel majority, applying Circuit precedent and authority from other Circuits, found that the grant of “original exclusive jurisdiction” in federal court by 28 U.S.C. § 4072 applied to his suit. A dissent argued that this statute, by its terms, applied only to a suit against FEMA’s Administrator and not a “WYO” carrier. Ekhlassi v. National Lloyds Ins. Co., No. 18-20228 (June 4, 2019).

Sometimes, simply stating the issue gives a strong indication as to the answer. Such was the case in McGlothlin v. State Farm, which examined whether two Mississippi statutes were “repugnant” to one another (synonyms for “repugnant,” according to one online reference, include “abhorrent, revolting, repulsive, repellent, disgusting, offensive, objectionable, vile, foul, nasty, [and] loathsome . . . .” Specifically, Mississippi’s uninsured-motorist statute (1) required State Farm to pay the damages that an insured is “legally entitled to recover” from an uninsured driver, and (2) treats a fireman driving a fire truck as “uninsured,” as a result of the statute’s governmental-immunity statute. A driver who was rear-ended by a fire truck argued that these two statutes were “repugnant” and had to be read in favor of coverage; the Fifth Circuit disagreed: “The two sections’ being ‘confusing’ does not equate to repugnancy.” No. 18-60338 (May 31, 2019).

Cohen argued, inter alia, that a letter from Allstate “merely denied ‘coverage for various items'” and thus lacked adequate specificity to effectively deny his flood-insurance claim (and thus start a 1-year federal statute of limitations). The Fifth Circuit disagreed, observing that “not even the temptations of a hard case will provide a basis for ordering recovery contrary to the terms of [a] regulation, for to do so would disregard the duty of all courts to observe the conditions defined by Congress for charging the public treasury.” Cohen v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 18-20330 (May 17, 2019) (citation omitted).

An insurer argued that its insured breached the policy’s cooperation clause by not dismissing a counterclaim against a third party. The Fifth Circuit disagreed: “Mid-Continent offers no law to support its novel and dubious concept that the Cooperation Clause applies to an insured’s affirmative claims against a third party, and the direction of the law in this area is against such a conclusion.” Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Petroleum Solutions, Inc., No. 17-20652 (Feb. 26, 2019).

A gruesome series of automobile accidents led to a fundamental question about causation and insurance coverage in Evanston Ins. Co. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co.: “Over a ten-minute period on November 15, 2013, the insured’s Mack truck struck (1) a Dodge Ram, (2) a Ford F150, (3) a Honda Accord, (4) a toll plaza, and (5) a Dodge Charger. . . . [T]he Mack truck’s primary insurer refused to contribute more than $1 million toward the settlements of the final three collisions, claiming that they were part of a single ‘accident’ under its policy.”  Examining the reference points about this question under Texas law, the Fifth Circuit noted that:

• Eight specific sales from one shipment of contaminated bird seed created eight separate occurrences;
• Two fires, set by the same arsonist “several blocks and at least two hours apart,” created two separate occurrences; and
• “[A]n HEB employee’s sexual abuse of two different children, a week apart, at an HEB store” created separate occurrences; however,
• A flawed three-hour crop dusting that damaged the land of several neighbors created one occurrence, even though “the plane had landed several times to refuel . . . [and] the temperature, wind, and altitude varied during the several passes over different sections of thee property”; and
• Two separate storms that damaged the same drilling rig created two separate occurrences.

Under the principles behind these cases, the Court found that the harm caused by the Mack truck’s driver created a single occurrence: “Absent any indication that the driver regained control of the truck or that his negligence was otherwise interrupted between collisions . . . all of the collisions resulted from the same continuous condition – the unbroken negligence of the Mack truck driver.” No. 17-20812 (Nov. 19, 2018).

Dubrow sued 2200 West Alabama Inc., alleging that Dubrow was the “rightful tenant” of space leased by 2200 West. Western World declined to defend the action, noting that its coverage only extended to claims about “[t]he wrongful eviction from, wrongful entry into, or invasion of the right of private occupancy of a . . . premises that a person occupies.” (emphasis added). While the meaning of “occupies” could be debated in the abstract, the term has a clear and unambiguous meaning under Texas case law, that “requires physical presence or possession.” Because Dubow never became a tenant, he never “occupied” the premises and coverage did not arise. 2200 West Alabama v. Western World Ins. Co., No. 17-20640 (Oct. 22, 2018).

The issue in SCF Waxler Marine LLC v. Aris T MV was whether the excess insurers for a multi-vessel accident could enforce a “Crown Zellerbach clause,” and thus limit their liability to the value of the insured vessel. (The vessel at issue, the Aris T (right) is presently in the Atlantic en route to Rotterdam from Mobile.) The Fifth Circuit found that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the district court’s ruling that the excess insurers could enforce such a clause: “The fundamentals of Bucher-Guyer bear a striking resemblance to this case. There, the district court determined the boundaries of a party’s liability— $500—based on the applicability of statutory language. Nevertheless, whether the opposing party was entitled to anything and, if so, how much was still to be determined. In this case, the court decided the boundaries of a party’s liability through determination of whether a contractual provision permitted them to do so. Whether Valero, Shell, and Motiva are legally permitted to recover anything from the Excess Insurers and, if so, how much remains to be determined.” No. 17-30805 (Oct. 30, 2018).

OGA Charters entered bankruptcy after a tragic accident involving one of its buses. Applying Louisiana World Exposition Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 832 F.2d 1391 (5th Cir. 1987), and Houston v. Edgeworth, 993 F.2d 51 (5th Cir. 1993), the Fifth Circuit held: “We now make official what our cases have long contemplated: In the ‘limited circumstances,’ as here, where a siege of tort claimants threaten the debtor’s estate over and above the policy limits, we classify the proceeds as property of the estate. Here, over $400 million in related claims threaten the debtor’s estate over and above the $5 million policy limit, giving rise to an equitable interest of the debtor in having the proceeds applied to satisfy as much of those claims as possible.” Martinez v. OGA Charters LLC, No. 17-40920 (Aug. 24, 2018).

Problems in the construction of the Zapata County courthouse (right) led to litigation between S&P (the general contractor), and its subcontractors, as well as between S&P and its insurer. The insurer and S&P disputed S&P’s allocation of the proceeds from settlements with the subcontractors, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed judgment for the insurer: “S&P bears the burden to show that the subcontractor settlement proceeds were properly allocated to either covered or noncovered damages. If S&P cannot meet that burden, under the [two controlling cases], then we must assume that all of the settlement proceeds went first to satisfy the covered damages under U.S. Fire’s policy.” Satterfield & Pontikes Constr. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., No. 17-20513 (Aug. 2, 2018).

The judgment creditor in Century Surety Co. v. Seidel, a case involving sexual assault on an underage restaurant employee, tried valiantly to collect from the restaurant’s insurance carrier. The Fifth Circuit found that the policy’s “criminal acts” exclusion precluded coverage, despite the plaintiff not specifically pleading that the underlying acts were criminal: “Appellants have cited no case law stating that, to trigger a criminal act exclusion, the plaintiff in the underlying suit must, in addition to describing actions that necessarily imply a crime, also specifically label those actions as criminal. Such a rule is incongruous with the plain language of the Policy and would create an artifice in criminal-act exclusions.” No. 17-10026 (June 25, 2018).

The Fifth Circuit issued a rare reversal in favor of an ERISA beneficiary in White v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am. The issue was whether an “intoxication” exclusion applied; a doctor consulted by the plan administrator in its decision about benefits opined: “Since the only blood test done was an alcohol [test] that was negative and no blood tested for the presence of drugs, an estimation of Mr. White’s level of impairment cannot be done. The drugs present in his urine only show that he had prior exposure and cannot be used to estimate a level of impairment. Further, the drug screen that was done on Mr. White’s urine specimen only provided qualitative positive results.” The Court concluded that even though the insurer’s denial of benefits was supported by substantial evidence, its failure to expressly consider this report in its analysis (or to produce the report to the beneficiary’s estate until litigation) showed that its inherent conflict of interest had predominated and invalidated its denial. No. 17-30367 (revised June 14, 2018).

The insured’s commercial property insurance policy provided coverage from June 2, 2012 to June 2, 2013. “The summary judgment evidence reveals that several hail storms struck the vicinity of the hotel in the several years preceding [the insured’s] claim. Only one of these storms fell within the coverage period.” The Fifth Circuit found that the insured failed to establish coverage, even with an expert’s opinion that said a date within the period was “most likely,” when that opinion was later disclaimed and “conflicts with the data it purports to rely on.” Certain Underwriters v. Lowen Valley View LLC, No. 17-10914 (June 6, 2018).

A useful reminder about contract litigation appears in a recent insurance coverage dispute: “Neither party argues that the Hartford policy is ambiguous. Rather, the parties dispute whether the policy unambiguously provides coverage—Axis’s contention—or unambiguously excludes coverage—Hartford’s contention.” Bennett v. Hartford Ins. Co., No. 17-30311 (May 18, 2018) (emphasis in original).

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins was decided in 1938. Sierra Equipment v. Lexington Ins. Co., an Erie case from the Fifth Circuit this week, turned on Texas authority that pre-dated Erie – specifically, a court of appeals opinion approved by the 1920s-era Texas Commission on Appeals (a representative picture of which is to the right). The specific question was whether the “equitable lien” doctrine allowed a lessee to sue on a lessor’s insurance policy absent a “loss payable” clause in the policy; consistent with the ruling of the Commission and most other cases on the point, the Court concluded that the lessee could not bring that suit. No. 17-10076 (May 15, 2018).

The triangular relationship between (1) an insurer, (2) an insured, and (3) the counsel chosen by the insurer to defend the insured in litigation can become an uneasy one.  Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cooley illustrates when it can become unstable. The insurer (Grain Dealers) provided the insureds (the Cooleys) a defense, “yet simultaneously disclaimed coverage if the Cooleys were ordered to clean the spill. In doing so, Grain Dealers failed to inform the Cooleys of their right to hire independent counsel. When the [relevant administrative agency] ultimately found the Cooleys liable for the spill, Grain Dealers then refused to defend or indemnify the Cooleys against a resulting claim.” That failure created the prejudice needed to estop Grain Dealers from denying coverage for liability: ” [T]he Cooleys presented evidence that Grain Dealers’ attorney never informed them of their right to challenge the [agency] decision. That right has since lapsed. The loss of the right to challenge the underlying administrative order with the benefit of non-conflicted counsel is clearly prejudicial.” No. 17-60307 (May 14, 2017, unpublished).

An unusual but intriguing coverage dispute arose after the insured’s death as a result of a bite from a mosquito infected with the dangerous West Nile virus. The Fifth Circuit reversed summary judgment for the carrier, observing in its analysis of the policy’s coverage for “accidental injury” –

• The importance of defining the specific injury – “Instead of focusing on Melton’s bite from a WNV-infected Culex mosquito, Minnesota Life argues that a mosquito bite generally is not unexpected and unforeseen in Texas. But a bite by a generic mosquito is not the accidental injury Gloria pleaded in her complaint; instead, she says it is the bite by a WNV-infected Culex mosquito that triggers coverage. Without guidance from the policy as to how broadly or narrowly an ;’accidental bodily injury’ is to be defined, we take the facts of the alleged accidental injury as
  Gloria contends.”
• And as to whether an injury as “accidental” – the Court quoted then-Judge Cardozo’s analysis from a 1925 opinion about inhalation of an airborne pathogen: “Germs may indeed be inhaled through the nose or mouth, or absorbed into the system through normal channels of entry. In such cases their inroads will seldom, if ever, be assignable to a determinate or single act, identified in space or time. For this as well as for the reason that the absorption is incidental to a bodily process both natural and normal, their action presents itself to the mind as a disease and not an accident.”
• But the Court distinguished the situation addressed by Judge Cardozo: “Here, however, there was a determinate, single act—the bite—that is not incidental to a bodily process. The mosquito, an external “physical” force, affirmatively acted to cause Melton harm and produce an unforeseen result. We find that inhaling a community-spread pathogen and being bitten by a mosquito can be thinly sliced so as to be distinguishable.”

Wells v. Minnesota Life, No. 16-20831 (March 22, 2018).

The plaintiff in Al Copeland Investments LLC v. First Specialty Ins. Corp. sued on an insurance policy about a claim for property damage to its business. It argued that this forum selection clause in the policy:

“The parties irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of the State of New York and to the extent permitted by law the parties expressly waive all rights to challenge or otherwise limit such jurisdiction.”

was trumped by this Louisiana statute:

“No insurance contract delivered or issued . . . in [Louisiana] . . . shall contain any condition, stipulation, or agreement . . . [d]epriving the courts of [Louisiana] of the jurisdiction of action against the insurer.”

The Fifth Circuit disagreed and affirmed dismissal based on forum non conveniens: “[The statute] prohibits provisions in an insurance contract that would deprive Louisiana courts of jurisdiction. ‘A forum-selection clause is a provision . . . that mandates a particular state, county, parish, or court as the proper venue in which the parties to an action must litigate . . . .’ As the district court recognized, venue and jurisdiction are ‘separate and distinct.'” No. 17-30557 (March 9, 2018) (emphasis in original).

Three tugboats towed a barge; one of the tugboats served as the “lead” while the other two assisted. One of the assisting tugboats had an accident and sank. The question for the Fifth Circuit in Continental Insurance v. L&L Marine Transportation was whether the sunken boat was a “tow” of the lead boat, and thus came within the coverage of the insurance policy for the lead. (As distinct from a TOW missile, right.) Reviewing dictionaries and court precedent, the Court concluded that “tow” describes a situation where “some ship or boat is being provided extra motive power from another ship or boat by being pushed or pulled,” which was not the case here. The Court rejected an argument based on the maritime “dominant mind” doctrine – a concept derived from the duty of a lead boat in a flotilla to navigate resonably – as bearing only on potential tort liability and not the issue of interpreting the terms of this insurance policy. No. 17-30424 (Feb. 15, 2018).

The question of timely notice to a carrier can give rise to close questions about insurance coverage. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Miranda-Mondragon, however, presented a straightforward issue: “The first notice Nautilus received of the lawsuit came from Miranda-Mondragon’s counsel 41 days after the state court entered default judgment . . . . The delayed notice prejudiced Nautilus as a matter of law and relieved Nautilus of liability under the policy.” No. 17-20261 (Oct. 20, 2017, unpublished).

Ramirez, on work trips to West Texas, contracted a fungal infection that led to the loss of an eye. His employee insurance plan would pay benefits “if an employee is injured as a result of an Accident, and that Injury is independent of Sickness and all other causes.” Based on the definitions of “Accident and “Sickness” in the policy, the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the insurer. Ramirez tried to come within a “carve-back” provision at the end of the “Accident” definition, which extended coverage to “bacterial infection that is the natural and foreseeable result of an accidental external bodily Injury or accidental food poisoning, but the Court concluded that “neither the policy’s language nor its structure indicates that this provision applies beyond those two specific occurrences.” Ramirez v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., No. 16-11660 (Oct. 6, 2017).

In Mainali v. Covington Specialty Ins. Co., the Fifth Circuit addressed “whether a payment made to comply with an appraisal award, which in most if not all cases is going to be paid after the 60-day window [set by the Texas Prompt Payment statute], is subject to [a statutory] penalty.” In an Erie analysis, the Court followed intermediate Texas authority that held such a payment was not subject to those statutory penalties, observing: “Covington was not trying to avoid payment of the claim; it was invoking a contractually agreed to mechanism for assessing the amount it owed.” No. 17-10350 (revised Sept. 27, 2017).

Sterling Homes, the general contractor on a residential construction project, successfully sued Espinoza, a painting subcontractor, for a fire loss over $1 million. Espinoza’s insurer denied coverage because Sterling Homes was an “additional insured” on Espinoza’s policy, which the insurer said brought the Sterling-Espinoza dispute within the policy’s “cross suits” (or “insured v. insured”) exclusion.. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the plain terms of the exclusion would cover parties that were named as “additional insureds,” in addition to the actualy purchasers of a policy. But as to the specific claims at issue, the Court further held that the exclusion was only intended to apply to Sterling Homes’s liability arising rom Espinoza’s operations, as “nothing in the plain language of the subcontracting agreement obligating Espinoza to name Sterling Homes as an additional insured suggests the parties intended for Espinoza to lose insurance overage in the event Sterling Homes needed to sue him.” Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s v. Sterling Custom Homes

The issue in Longhorn Gasket & Supply Co. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co. was whether asbestos was within the scope of a pollution exclusion that applied to  “irritants, contaminants or pollutants.” Acknowledging a dearth of Texas case law on the subject, and lack of a clear trend in opinions nationally, the Fifth Circuit concluded that asbestos was an “irritant” under the commonly-accepted meaning of that term, and the underlying claims thus fell within the scope of the exclusion. The Court then held that because “[w]e have concluded that the pollution exclusion applies . . . the burden shifts to [the insured] to attempt to apply an exception to the exclusion”; in this case whether “such discharge, dispersal, release or escape is sudden and accidental.” No. 15-41625 (Aug. 18, 2017).

The Fifth Circuit reversed a summary judgment for the insured in a dispute about “advertising injury” coverage, finding that the underlying pleading “alleged misrepresentations . . . directed at a particular potential customer in reference to a particular project that a competitor was undertaking. It thus impugned a particular competitor and its services by necessary implication” (thus distinguishing KLN Steel Prods. Co. v. CNA Ins. Cos., 278 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2008, pet. denied)). This brought the claim within the policy, which covered “injury . . . arising out of the oral or written publication, in any manner, or material that disparages a person’s or organization’s goods, products or services.” Uretek (USA), Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 15-20104 (July 28, 2017).

Laney Chiropractic v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. presented a dispute about whether “advertising injury,” covered by insurance, was raised by a complaint about a competitor’s statements about a chiropractic massage technique. The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the insurer, finding, inter alia: “[W]hen an insured is accused of using another’s product, they are generally not using another’s ‘advertising idea.’ . . . And that is precisely what the Underlying Complaint alleges. It alleges that Laney unlawfully used a patented product . . . and then advertised the product on its website.” Arguments based on alleged trade dress and slogan infringement failed for similar reasons. No. 16-1183 (July 28, 2017)

Servisair bought a workers’ compensation policy from Liberty Mutual, “There is no dispute that Servisair significantly over-allocated payroll to clerical employees, which is a considerably less expensive classification.” Thus, after the payroll period ended and an audit concluded, Liberty Mutual billed Servisair for $3.6 million in additional premium. Servisair alleged a mistake in the “underlying factual basis” relied upon “in negotiating and agreeing to the policy,” but the Fifth Circuit sided with Liberty Mutual, noting that the policy expressly stated: “If the final premium is more than the premium [Servisair] paid to [Liberty Mutual], [Servisair] must pay [Liberty Mutual the balance.” In other words, “[t]his is an open-ended obligation with no limit on the amount of additional premium Servisair might ultimately owe.” In sum: “Servisair made a deal that, in retrospect, it did not like. That does not allow it to rewrite or avoid its obligations.” Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Servisair, LLC, No. 16-20472 (June 27, 2017, unpublished).

In Richard v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., the Fifth Circuit required reformation of a contract on the grounds of mutual mistake, to the detriment of non-party Liberty Mutual, acknowledging that “[c]ourts must guard against parties’ ‘attempts to make an end-run around the parol-evidence rule,’ which forecloses the use of parol evidence to interpret unambiguous terms, ‘by framing [their] argument[s] as a request for reformation.” Here, reformation was appropriate even considering the effect on Liberty Mutual, given (1) its lack of reliance on the contract, (2) the general consistency of the terms in the reformed contract with industry practice, and (3) course of performance. No. 16-30216 (March 2, 2017).

Federal Insurance agreed to pay defense costs in ongoing commercial litigation against its insureds, subject to its position that under the policy, payment of defense costs deplete the policy limits. The relevant clause said: “[T]he Limit of Liability under the Fiduciary Coverage Section is $1 million, subject to a $1 million aggregate limit, and a $10,000.00 Retention, with Defnse Costs eroding or depleting those limits.” The Fifth Circuit agreed with Federal, rejecting arguments based on the limit potentially implicating conflict-of-interest concerns for counsel, and policy issues raised by applicable state statutes in the health care area. In sum: “Under Mississippi law, insurance policies are to be enforced according to their provisions.” Federal Ins. Co. v. Singing River Health System, Ni. 15-60774 (March 1, 2017).

A church in Hattiesburg, Mississippi proved that its insurer did not properly handle its claim resulting from tornado damage (right), resulting in a damages award of over $1,000,000. The Fifth Circuit affirmed against challenges by both sides; as to the church’s request for punitive damages, it held: “Taking the facts in the light most favorable to Mount Carmel, GuideOne’s alleged conduct did not rise to the necessary level of an independent tort that would warrant punitive damages. Mount Carmel merely alleges that GuideOne had ‘knowledge of the financial harm that would result’ from its cancellation of the policy. But this type of knowledge is likely present for many cancellations and alone is not sufficient to rise to the level of an independent tort. Accordingly, it does not warrant punitive damages.” GuideOne Elite Ins. Co. v. Mount Carmel Ministries, No. 15-60915 (Jan. 23, 2017, unpublished).

OneBeacon Ins. Co. v. Welch & Assocs. involved insurance coverage for an attorney malpractice claim, arising for an exclusion for knowledge about “any actual or alleged act, error, omission or breach of duty arising out of the rendering or the failure to render professional legal services.” Since even the carrier agreed that “[o]n its face, this covers every single thing an attorney does or does not do, wrongful or not,” the Fifth Circuit found that the exclusion could not be applied literally without making the contract illusory. Focusing on the alleged “wrongful act,” the Court found that the relevant lawyer’s awareness of a discovery order and potential dispute was not equivalent to knowledge that a rare death-penalty sanction award would result. The Court also sustained an award of additional violations for an intentional violation of the Insurance Code with respect to the handling of the claim. No. 15-20402 (Nov. 14, 2016).

Color Star Growers (a wholesale distributor of flowers) went into bankruptcy; their lenders sued the Verbeeks in Texas state court, alleging that they fraudulently induced the loans to Color Star. The Verbeeks sought a defense from the D&O carrier for their company. The insurer successfully obtained summary judgment based on the policy’s “Creditor Exclusion” and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The exclusion said: “The Insurer shall not be liable to pay any Loss on account of, and shall not be obligated to defend, any Claim brought or maintained by or on behalf of . . . [a]ny creditor of a company or organization in the creditor’s capacity as such, whether or not a bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding involving the company or organization has been commenced.” Rejecting the Verbeeks’ arguments that the state court plaintiffs were suing as “administrative agents” or “investors” rather than creditors, the Court observed that “the alleged facts giving rise to the underlying litigation relate entirely to the state court plaintiffs’ loan agreements with Color Star . . . .” The Court went on to affirm as to the duty to indemnify as well. Marke Am. Ins. Co. v. Verbeek, No. 15-51099 (Sept. 27, 2016, unpublished).

Cal Dive International sued Schmidt (a commercial diver), and Edwards (Schmidt’s attorney in a previous personal injury suit against Cal Dive), alleging that Schmidt had misrepresented his injuries, and seeking restitution of contingent fees paid to Edwards. Cal Dive specifically alleged that it did not believe Edwards knew of the purported fraud. Edwards sought coverage for defense costs, and the Fifth Circuit reversed a judgment in his favor: “Cal Dive’s complaint, for which Edwards seeks defense from Continental, contains no allegations against Edwards, save for his receipt of settlement funds in the nature of attorney’s fees as a result of his client’s alleged fraud. Acts or omissions in the rendering of legal services by Edwards to his client, Schmidt, are simply not at issue.” Edwards v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 15-30827 (Nov. 2, 2016).

Apache Corporation had an insurance policy for computer fraud, which said: “We will pay for loss of, and loss from damage to, money, securities and other property resulting directly from the use of any computer to fraudulently cause a transfer of that property from inside the premises or banking premises: (a) to a person (other than a messenger) outside those premises; or (b) to a place outside those premises.” (emphasis added) The Fifth Circuit, after a “detailed — albeit numbing — analysis of the cited authorities,” concluded that the weight of the case law did not create coverage under this policy for the following events:

1. Apache received a call from a vendor (actually, a criminal posing as the vendor) asking that Apache change its payments to a new bank account.
2. Apache asked for a formal request on the vendor’s letterhead; one arrived about a week later by email with an attachment on letterhead (from a domain used by the criminals to further pose as the vendor);
3. Apache called the number on the letterhead to verify the request, and after thinking it had confirmed the authenticity of the request, began sending payments to a new bank account.

While computer use obviously played a role in the deception, the Court noted: “To interpret the computer-fraud provision as reaching any fraudulent scheme in which an email communication was part of the process would . . . convert the computer-fraud provision to one for general fraud.” Apache Corp. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., No. 15-20499 (Oct. 18, 2016, unpublished).

The parties in AIG Specialty Ins. Co. v. Tesoro Corp. disputed whether limitations had run on an insurance coverage claim involving the identity of the named insured (and in turn, whether that entity owned a refinery subject to difficult environmental remediation orders). As a matter of contract law, the Court agreed that mere receipt of an insurance policy does not necessarily bar a reformation claim. But under Texas limitations principles, the insured could not establish that the insurer had “specialized knowledge” about the subject of refinery ownership, or that the mistake in the policy was inherently undiscoverable — especially then “the mistake is evident from the face of the document.” No. 15-50953 (Oct. 17, 2016).

The unfortuante Noreen Johnson sought to recover from her insurer after her home suffered wind damage from Hurricane Isaac, and then caught fire roughly two years later. The insurer successfully defended against her claim based on her failure to cooperate as required by the policy. In addition to showing her failure to provide required information, the insurer was able to establish prejudice, in that (1) “by significantly altering the state of the house before GeoVera’s agent could appraise it, Johnson effectively negated GeoVera’s appraisal right, as GeoVera could no longer inspect the extent of the smoke damage,” and (2) “by refusing to sit for an examination under oath until over a year after the fire . . . [t]he delay caused Johnson to forget information vital to protect GeoVera from fraud during the claims process.” Johnson v. GeoVera Specialty Ins. Co., No. 15-30803 (Sept. 27, 2016, unpublished).

Insurance coverage litigation provided another example of the tension between the “Scylla” of pleading — the “plead more detail” command from Twombly and Iqbal — and its “Charybids” — the principle of insurance law that “[a]ll doubts regarding the duty to defend are resolved in favor of the insured.” Fed Ins. Co. v. Northfield Ins. Co., No. 14-20633 (Sept. 16, 2016). Here, ltigation about pollution liability led to a dispute about whether a “pollution exclusion” eliminated the duty to defend. The Fifth Circuit reversed a summary judgment in favor of the insurer, noting: “ExxonMobil’s petition does not attach any of the petitions in the Louisiana Litigation. ExxonMobil’s petition provides very little information about the nature of the claims made in the Louisiana Litigation, for which ExxonMobil seeks indemnity and defense costs from [the insured].” As a result, “because of the breadth and generality of the allegations in ExxonMobil’s state court petition, we cannot say that all of the claims fall clearly within the exclusion.”

Tesoro, an oil refiner and marketer, submitted a claim to National Union under its commercial crime insurance policy, involving the forgery of key documents by a Tesoro employee about the account of Enmex, a substantial Tesoro customer. The Fifth Circuit reasoned that the “Employee Theft” provision of the policy required a showing of an unlawful taking, and that Tesoro failed to show had “the forged letters of credit and security agreement induced Tesoro to continue selling fuel to Enmex or what evidence supports this assertion . . . In sum, Tesoro failed to offer any evidence that it would have acted differently had it known the Enmex account was actually not secured.” Tesoro Refining v. National Union, No. 15-50405 (July 29, 2016).

Litigation about the failed drilling of an oil well led to insurance litigation under Louisiana’s Direct Action Statute. The district court granted summary judgment to the insured as to its insurers’ duty to indemnify, and the Fifth Circuit reversed, finding that the indemnity issue was not yet justiciable: “[I]t is readily apparent that ‘facts can be developed’ at trial that would support a finding that at least some of [the insured’s] conduct related to the failed directional drilling project triggered coverage under the relevant policies. Beyond the already existing testimony . . . [the insured] points to a number of witnesses who were not deposed but who could testify at trial on relevant issues such as subcontractors, surveyors, and consultants.” Solstice Oil & Gas LLC v. Seneca Ins. Co., No. 15-30874 (July 21, 2016).

Extensive tornado damage to a building at the University of Southern Mississippi led to a hard-fought dispute among insurers. The Fifth Circuit’s detailed affirmance of the district court’s opinion turned on this observation about the losing insurer’s postition: “Were this construction adopted, insurers who covered the same risk would be incentivized to enter into a stare-down, each waiting for the other to blink first in order to seize the opportunity to deny coverage. Such an outcome is neither reasonable nor commercially practicable.” Southern Ins. Co. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., No. 15060742 (July 21, 2016). (The opinion also features a rare appellate shout-out to T.S. Eliot’s The Hollow Men.)

Individuals injured in an industrial accident sued DP Engineering; the resulting insurance coverage litigation turned on whether the policies’ “professional services” exclusion applies. As to the duty to defend, after careful review of the underlying pleadings, the Fifth Circuit found that “[t]he facts alleged do not include administrative, non-professional activities,” but rather all involved “injuries that ‘arise out of’ DP Engineering’s . . . allegedly negligent engineering services.” However, the Court found error in resolving the duty to indemnify on the pleadings, as “[t]he allegations in the underlying lawsuits . . . do not conclusively foreclose that facts adduced a trial may show DP Engineering also provided non-professional services, which would be covered under the policy.” Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. v. DP Engineering LLC, No. 15-10443 (June 29, 2016).

Ronald Crose, an overly enthusiastic raver, took ecstasy and suffered a stroke not long after. A suit on his health insurance policy followed; at issue was an exclusion for “[l]oss due to being . . . under the influence of any narcotic.” The Fifth Circuit agreed that ecstasy was a “narcotic” within the meaning of the exclusion, rejecting as overly technical the argument that “narcotic” refers only to “drugs derived from a plant” (as opposed to a “hallucinogen” such as ectasy). The Court went on to find that under applicable Texas law, “due to” required more than “but for” causation, but did not require proof that the narcotic was the sole cause of injury. Crose v. Humana Ins. Co., No. 15-50559 (May 23, 2016).

In July 2009, hail damaged the then-dormant Dallas Plaza Hotel (right), owned by Hamilton Properties. Hamilton inspected the property in November 2010, emailed an insurance agent in February 2011, and filed a claim in October 2011.  The Fifth Circuit agreed that Hamilton had failed to give reasonably prompt notice, noting that it had no explanation for the long delay, and that while the insurer had been able to investigate the claim: “It is undisputed that because of Hamilton’s delay, AIC lost access to critical evidence, including the condition of the twelfth floor before and after the July hailstorm and up until the end of the coverage period.” Hamilton Properties, Inc v. American Ins. Co., No. 15-10382 (April 14, 2016, unpublished).

Lalo sued for injuries he suffered while riding in an 18-wheeler driven by Estrada.  Castle Point Insurance sought a declaration about its coverage obligations.  The Fifth Circuit, applying Texas’s “eight corners rule,” found that the district court erred in applying a “work-related injuries” exclusion to Lalo because his “state-court complaint contains no allegation that Lalo was an employee of [the trucking company]; nor does it contain sufficient factual allegations to classify Lalo as an employee.”  As to Estrada — again, not specifically alleged to be an employee — the insurer had a duty to defend (and potentially, to indemnify) because the evidence might establish him to be an employee.  (This is Lalo’s Petition — notably, while he never directly claims to be an employee, he does allege the defendants’ “[f]ailure to furnish Plaintiff with a safe place to work” and their hiring of “[n]egligent co-workers like Defendant ESTRADA — vividly illustrating the importance of the specific words used in pleading allegations that bear on insurance coverage.)  Castle Point Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Lalo, No. 15-10224 (March 17, 2016, unpublished).

Ayoub v. Chubb Lloyds Ins. Co. of Texas confronted a “scattershot and somewhat redundant” endorsement to a homeowner’s policy, “unlike any policy language addressed in Texas case law that we have seen.”  The endorsement dealt with personal property. The district court granted summary judgment for the insured, concluding that the “actual cash value” described in the endorsement could not be proved with the insured’s affidavit about replacement cost.  The Fifth Circuit disagreed and reversed, noting that the Texas Supreme Court has acknowledged that “personal effects have ‘no market value in the ordinary meaning of that term,'” meaning that “[t]he trier of facts may consider original cost and cost of replacement,” among other evidence.  No. 14-51301 (Jan. 28, 2016, unpublished).

A highly technical dispute about the applicable law for an offshore salvage operation produced an insurance holding of general applicability in Tetra Technologies, Inc v. Continental Ins. Co., No. 15-30446 (Feb. 24, 2016).  The policy exclusion applied to “[a]ny obligation of the insured under a workers compensation, United States Longshoreman’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, Jones Act, Death on the High Seas Act, General Maritime Law, Federal Employers’ Liability Act, disability benefits or unemployment compensation law or any similar law . . . ”  The Fifth Circuit concluded that the “any similar law,” while referring generally to employers’ liability (since all the laws specifically named deal with that issue), was still ambiguous and meant that the exclusion would be construed against the insurer.

Health Care Service Corporation (known in Texas as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas), serves as the administrator of various insurance plans.  It had a dispute with Methodist Hospitals of Dallas about its potential liability under the Texas Prompt Pay Act, which sets penalties for insurance claims that are not processed within the deadlines set out by the Act.  The Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that the Act did not apply when Blue Cross “did not provide benefits through its administrator and preferred provider agremeents, but instead merely distributes claim payments from plans to providers[.]”  The Court also found federal preemption of claims under the Act related to claims under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.  Health Care Service Corp. v. Methodist Hospitals of Dallas, No. 15-10154 (Feb. 10, 2016).

National Casualty sued its insured in federal court for a declaratory judgment that there was no coverage.  The insured sued National Casualty and the insured’s insurance brokers in state court for misleading it about coverage.  The district court found that those additional parties were indispensable for the federal action (and would destroy diversity if joined), and abstained under Colorado River from proceeding further.  Reminding “that it is not necessary for all joint tortfeasors to be named as defendants in a single lawsuit,” the Fifth Circuit reversed as to the joinder analysis, and also as to abstention, noting in particular that “the federal action has proceeded to summary judgment . . . [and] the state court action has involved little more than an original petition, answers, and a stay of proceedings.”  National Casualty Co. v. Gonzalez, No. 15-10478 (Feb. 4, 2016, unpublished).

Construction Funding filed a timely, sworn, proof of loss that “itemized the claim into general categories” such as “building structures” and “personal property.”  Unfortunately, the relevant policy (incorporating a background federal law), required a “complete” inventory with attached documents.  In this context “substantial compliance . . . is not enough,” and Construction Funding had no coverage for its loss.  Construction Funding, LLC v. Fidelity Nat’l Indem. Ins. Co., No. 15-30040 (Jan. 8, 2016, unpublished).

Plaintiffs sued about insulation installed in their home by the defendants, alleging that they “failed to seal off completely areas in which vapors could be transported from the areas under renovation and construction to the existing area[] of the house[,] in which the Commarotos, their three minor children, and their houseguest, Schlegel, were living and sleeping during the construction process.” The district court found that these allegations unambigously fell within the pollution exclusion of the relevant insurance policy and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.  The Court declined to consider “deposition testimony by two of the plaintiffs stating that they physically touched and examined the spray foam insulation.”  While an exception to the “eight corners rule” could allow consideration of such evidence if “it is initially impossible to discern whether coverage is potentially implicated” (among other matters), the clarity of this pleading precluded its application here.  Evanston Ins. Co. v. Lapolla Indus, Inc., No. 15-20213 (Dec. 23, 2015, unpublished) (applying Star-Tex Resources, LLC v. Granite State Ins. Co., 553 F. App’x 366 (5th Cir. 2014)).

Greenwich Insurance Company made a number of errors in its internal accounting about crop insurance premiums.  When those mistakes ultimately led to a substantial assessment against it by a state authority, Greenwich argued that the state standards were preempted by regulations associated with the Federal Crop Insurance Act.  The Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that they were not, as the true source of Greenwich’s problems was not the state rules but its own “acts of unjustifiable incompetence”:  “The FCIC did not intend to hamstring . . . the operations of state programs . . . simply to protect inattentive insurers from their own mistakes.”  Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Mississippi Windstorm Underwrting Ass’n, No. 15-60405 (Dec. 15, 2015).

Cameron International, a main defendant in the Deepwater Horizon cases, successfully sued Liberty Insurance to help cover its substantial settlement costs. After affirming on the merits, the Fifth Circuit certified this question to the Texas Supreme Court: “Whether, to maintain a cause of action under Chapter 541 of the Texas Insurance Code against an insurer that wrongfully withheld policy benefits, an insured must allege and prove an injury independent from the denied policy benefits?” Cameron International Corp. v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc., No. 14-31321 (Nov. 19, 2015).

The Pyes’ home, valued at $195,000 before Hurricane Ike, was destroyed by that storm.  After they recovered under various insurance policies, the Fifth Circuit found that further recovery under a flood insurance policy would be an impermissible double recovery. Noting that federal common law applied in this area rather than Texas law, the Court nevertheless found that Texas’s emphasis on fair market value was persuasive, and set the $195,000 valuation as the cap on recovery.  While reaching this result, the Court reminded that “the question of the proper measure of recovery under a policy, which is controlled by policy language when defined in the contract as it is here, as distinct from the question of how the bar on double recovery is applied.”  Pye v. Fidelity Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 14-40315 (Nov. 6, 2015).

After losing a state court lawsuit, Martin Resource Management settled with its primary insurer (Zurich) for less than policy limits.  Axis, the excess carrier, won summary judgment with the argument that this settlement did not trigger coverage, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.  The Axis policy said: “The Insurance afforded under this Policy shall apply only after all applicable Underlying Insurance . . . has been exhausted by actual payment under such Underlying Insurance[.]”  Martin Resource Management Corp. v. Axis Ins. Co., No. 14-40512 (Oct. 21, 2015) (applying Citigroup, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 649 F.3d 367, 371-73 (5th Cir. 2011)).

McGowan successfully sued his employer, Tractor Supply Co., for over $8 million in damages after a severe workplace injury.  In the meantime, TSC’s umbrella carrier sued TSC and another carrier for a declaration about coverage obligations.  The district court dismissed for lack of standing, and pursuant to its discretion under the Declaratory Judgment Act.  The Fifth Circuit reversed; its principal holdings were: (1) under Texas insurance law, this sort of suit is justiciable after a liability determination at trial, and does not require exhaustion of appellate remedies; (2) the issues and parties were different in the two actions; and (3) the declaratory judgment suit was filed after the state case and otherwise showed “no indication of procedural fencing.”  Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co. v. Tractor Supply Co. 14-51164 (Aug. 25, 2015, unpublished)

In a dispute about insurance coverage for a False Claims Act case involving the repair of Coast Guard cutters, the relevant exclusion reached: “[t]he failure of your products to meet any
predetermined level of fitness or performance and/or guarantee of such fitness or level of performance and/or any consequential loss arising therefrom.”  The insured argued that “predetermination” implied a bilateral agreement, while a “requirement” was unilateral and did not implicate the exclusion.  The Fifth Circuit disagreed for several reasons: “But ‘predetermined’ means only ‘established, decided upon, or
decreed beforehand.’ It implies nothing about how a determination comes about, or who has the authority to determine. A single party can ‘determine’ something, and can do so in advance: there is nothing inherently bilateral about predetermination. And even if there were, the complaint lays out straightforwardly that [the insured] failed to meet a requirement that the parties together determined in advance. (citation omitted)”  XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. Bollinger Shipyards, Inc., No. 14-31283 (Aug. 27, 2015).

A contractor who undertakes to build a house does not have insurance coverage, because of the “your work” exception, if soil movement causes an unacceptable foundation failure.  This exception does not apply to a contractor with a specified and limited scope of work — for example, wall damage is not “your work” for a contractor hired only to repair a foundation.  Feaster v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., No. 15-20074 (Aug. 27, 2015, unpublished).

Plaintiff claimed that he was not given proper medications by a private corrections company while incarcerated.  The ensuing coverage litigation turned on a “medical services” exclusion, which said in relevant part:

“a) medical, surgical, dental or nursing treatment to such person or the person inflicting the injury including the furnishing of food or beverages in connection therewith;
b) furnishing or dispensing of drugs or medical, dental or surgical supplies or appliances if the injury occurs after the Named Insured has relinquished possession thereof to others;”

The Fifth Circuit agreed with the insurer that (a) and (b) dealt with different, distinct, situations and had to be harmonized – noting that an “or” between two later subparts supported this reading.  Accordingly, the exclusion in (a) could apply even if (b) was not triggered.  LCS Corrections Services v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 14-40494 (Sept. 4, 2015).

Employees of the Stanford Financial Group sought coverage for attorneys fees incurred in defending federal criminal charges.  The district court held the policy ambiguous and found coverage under the contra proferentem doctrine.  The insurer sought reversal based on the “sophisticated insured” exception to that doctrine under Texas law.  (A previous panel certified the question whether this exception existed in Texas to the Texas Supreme Court, who declined to answer it by resolving that case on other grounds.) Concluding that if Texas were to recognize the exception, it would apply a “middle-ground approach,” the majority affirmed: “Absent any information about the content of the negotiations, how the contracts were prepared, or other indicators of relative bargaining power, [the insurer] did not present evidence that the insured did or could have influenced the terms of the exclusion.”  A dissent would have sidestepped saying anything about the exception, preferring to affirm on the ground that the policy unambiguously provided coverage. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds v. Perraud, No. 14-10849 (Aug. 12, 2015, unpublished).

Cox Operating incurred significant expenses in cleaning up pollution and debris at its oil-and-gas facilities after Hurricane Katrina.  Its insurer disputed coverage.  After a lengthy trial, the district court awarded $9,465,103.22 in damages and $13,064,948.28 in penalty interest under the Texas Prompt Payment Act.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed in Cox Operating LLC v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., No. 13-20529 (July 30, 2015).

After finding that the one-year reporting requirement in Cox’s policy was not an unwaivable limitation on coverage, the Court confronted a “disturbing inconsistency” about the Act. On the one hand, the penalty-interest provision applies generally “[i]f an insurer that is liable for a claim under an insurance policy is not in compliance with this subchapter.”  On the other hand, of the Act’s variously deadlines, only one expressly ties its violation to the penalty provision.  The Fifth Circuit found for the insured, finding “the construction urged by St. Paul . . . would seem to transform all but one of the Act’s deadlines from commands backed by the threat of penalty interest to suggestions backed by nothing at all.”

H&E Equipment sued Advanced Services after a fire at a plywood plant.  Advanced brought a third-party claim against Georgia-Pacific for indemnity, who in turn sought coverage from Kinsale Insurance.  Kinsale denied coverage on the ground that Advanced was also insured under the relevant policy, triggering this “insured v. insured” exclusion:  “This insurance does not apply to claims or ‘suits’ for ‘bodily injury,’ ‘property damage’ or ‘personal and advertising injury’ brought by one insured against any other insured.”  The Fifth Circuit reversed summary judgment for the insurer, reasoning: “Advanced did not, in turn, seek damages from Georgia-Pacific due to a property loss; it sought indemnity based on general tort principles for the property damage that occurred to another party. Advanced had no property damage, but it seeks protection from a potential duty to pay for someone else’s property damages.”  Kinsale Ins. Co. v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, No. 14-60770 (July 27, 2015) (distinguishing Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Conner, 973 F.2d 1236 (5th Cir. 1992).

Two test preparation services sued each other.  The plaintiff sought coverage for a counterclaim under a policy that covered “injury arising out of . . . infringing upon another’s copyright, trade dress or slogan in your advertisement” (in other words, “trade dress” but not “trademark” claims).  .” (emphasis added). Even under the generous standards for determining the duty to defend, the counterclaim’s allegations did not trigger coverage: “The central focus in this coverage dispute, however, is not on the confusion, but on what allegedly is causing the confusion. The alleged confusion in this case stems from the use of a similar service mark (“Testmasters”), and the false
representation that TES offers a similar service (live LSAT courses offered nationwide). None of the allegations possibly states a claim for confusingly similar trade dress.”  Test Masters Educational Services, Inc. v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-20473 (June 29, 2015).

Building on In re Deepwater Horizon, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2015 WL 674744 (Tex. Feb. 13, 2015), in Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co. v. Aspen Underwriting, the Fifth Circuit addressed whether the following insurance policy provision limited the excess insurer’s obligations to a $5 million that the insured was obliged to provide under another contract: “The word ‘Insured,’ wherever used in this Policy, shall mean . . . any person or entity to whom [Insured] is obliged by a written ‘Insurance Contract’ entered into before any relevant ‘Occurrence’ and/or ‘Claim’ to provide insurance such as is afforded by this Policy.”  The Court found that it did, even though the contract at issue in Deepwater Horizon had additional provisions that bore on this question.  No. 13-51027 (June 10, 2015).

Withdrawing an earlier panel opinion, the Fifth Circuit certified two insurance questions to the Louisiana Supreme Court in 2014, which have now been answered:

1.  Whether an insurer can be liable for a bad-faith failure-to-settle claim when it never received a firm settlement offer.  (The Fifth Circuit noted that a revised statute imposed “an affirmative duty . . . to make a reasonable effort to settle claims,” drawing into question prior case law in the area.)  The Louisiana Supreme Court said: “Having determined that the plain language supports the existence of a cause of action in favor of the insured under [the revised statute], we answer this question affirmatively.”

2.  Whether an insurer can be liable for “misrepresenting or failing to disclose facts that are not related to the insurance policy’s coverage” — namely, the status of a claim and related settlement negotiations.  The answer: ” An insurer can be found liable under [the statute] for misrepresenting or failing to disclose facts that are not related to the insurance policy’s coverage; the statute prohibits the misrepresentation of ‘pertinent facts,’ without restriction to facts ‘relating to any coverages.'”

Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit remanded for further proceedings in Kelly v. State Farm, No. 12-31064 (May 29, 2015, unpublished).

Amerisure and Arch disputed whether Arch exhausted its policy limits.  The Arch policy had an endorsement that said the coverage section “is amended as follows: The provision: ‘These payments will not reduce the limits of insurance. is deleted in its entirety and is replaced with the following provision: ‘These payments will reduce the limits of insurance.’”

Amerisure argued that the “expenses” referred to by the endorsement could not be read as including attorneys fees without contradicting another, more specific portions of the policy: ” Our right and duty to defend end[s] when we have used up the applicable limit of insurance in the payment of judgments or settlements under Coverages A or B or medical expenses under Coverage C.”

The Fifth Circuit disagreed, reasoning: “This construction reads the endorsement out of the policy as, logically, there can never be an end to the duty to defend unless the insurer
pays the policy limits in indemnity payments.”  Accordingly, Arch had an “eroding” policy with the insured, and its payments of attorneys fees had exhausted the policy limits.  Amerisure Mutual Ins. Co. v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., No. 14-20239 (April 21, 2015).

At issue in North Cypress Medical Center Operating Co. v. Cigna Healthcare was a basic aspect of the structure of a “preferred provider” insurance program.  Under the many policies at issue, “in-network” providers receive more reimbursement than “out-of-network” ones, as an incentive to seek treatment in-network.  With respect to the portion of the bill as to which patients had responsibility, certain providers provided “prompt pay” discounts.  Insurers disputed whether they were then still responsible for the entire billed amount, or should have their responsibility reduced by a corresponding discount.  The Fifth Circuit found that the patients, and thus the providers to whom they assigned their claims, had standing to litigate about this situation (reversing a district court ruling to the contrary).  It also found that ERISA preempted state law claims about these issues, that limitations applied (without tolling) to compulsory counterclaims by insurers that sought affirmative relief rather than recoupment, and affirmed the dismissal of RICO claims by the provider.  The litigation seems likely to continue, and to produce more issues about complicated and significant ERISA and procedural points.  No. 12-20695 (March 10, 2015).

An insurer settled with its insured; the settlement “did not contain an admission of liability under the Policy and both parties dispute whether the Policy covered the four claims at issue.”  Accordingly, the insured had no claim under the Texas Prompt Payment Act for an alleged breach of the settlement.  Tremago, L.P. v. Euler-Hermes American Credit Indemnity Co., No. 13-41179 (Feb. 25, 2015, unpublished).  The Court also found that a trio of statements such as “[Plainitff] has not alleged, let alone proffered any evidence of any act on [Defendant’s] part that fairly can be characterized as ‘so extreme’ that it would cause ‘injury independent of the policy claim’ was sufficient to place the plaintiff on notice that its extra-contractual claims were within the scope of the defendant’s summary judgment motion.

A design firm proved at trial that Hallmark Design Homes built hundreds of houses such as the one on the right, using its copyrighted plans without permission. Hallmark filed for bankruptcy; the remaining issue was whether the claim was “advertising injury” under Mid-Continent’s various liability policies.  Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Kipp Flores Architects, LLC, No. 14-50649 (Feb. 26, 2015, unpublished).

The Fifth Circuit affirmed judgment for the insured.  After reminding that additional evidence can be offered in a coverage dispute about matters addressed in a prior lawsuit, the Court held: “[I]t is undisputed that Hallmark’s primary means of marketing its construction business was through the use of the homes themselves, both through model homes and yard signs on the property of infringing homes it had built, all of which were marketed to the general public . . . .”  Because the homes themselves were “advertisements,” Mid-Continent’s policies covered the prior judgment.

(This post’s title comes from an exchange between Falstaff and Mistress Ford in The Merry Wives of Windsor.)

In the case of In re Deepwater Horizon, the Texas Supreme Court has answered the certified questions raised in a significant insurance case about BP’s coverage related to the Deepwater Horizon disaster.  (No. 130670, Tex. Feb. 13, 2015.)  The issue is whether BP was an additional insured under policies obtained by Transocean, the operator of the ill-fated rig.  Applying Evanston Ins. Co. v. ATOFINA Petrochemicals, Inc., 256 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. 2008), the Court held that “it is possible for a named insured to purchase a greater amount of coverage for an additional insured than an underlying service contract requires,” and that “the scope of indemnity and insurance clauses in service contracts is not necessarily congruent.”  From that foundation, the court concluded: “The Drilling Contract required Transocean to name BP as an additional insured only for the liability Transocean assumed under the contract.  Accordingly, Transocean had separate duties to indemnify and insure BP for certain risk, but the scope of that risk for either indemnity or insurance purposes extends only to above-surface pollution.”

Fernando Ramirez died after a beating by security guards at a nightclub.  His estate sued the guards and the business that owned the club, as well as subsequent owners, alleging a scheme to hide assets.  This lawsuit led to an insurance coverage dispute between the subsequent owners and the CGL carrier at the time of the incident.  Colony Ins. Co. v. Price, No. 14-10317 (Feb. 12, 2015, unpublished).  The specific allegations against the later owners in the underlying suit are far from clear, and appear to be obscured by broad use of the term “Defendants.”  Nevertheless, the district court and Fifth Circuit agreed that these parties were not covered as “employees” under the policy:  “Most obviously, the Price Defendants fail to explain how MTP and TOM, a partnership and a limited liability company, can be employees at all, let alone employees who falsely imprisoned Ramirez on October 1, 2008, particularly given that the Petition alleges that they were not formed until December 31 of the following year.”

In an earlier opinion, the Fifth Circuit reversed a summary judgment in favor of an insured, finding a fact issue as to whether late notice caused prejudice to the carrier.  “Berkley I,” Berkley Regional Ins. Co. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., 690 F.3d 342 (5th Cir. 2012). After further proceedings, the district court granted summary judgment to the carrier and the Court affirmed.  “Berkley II,”  Berkley Regional Ins. Co. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., No. 13-51180 c/w No. 14-50099 (Jan. 27, 2015, unpublished).  The key issue was whether notice to the broker sufficed to give notice the the carrier; the Court reasoned that even if the broker had a limited agency relationship with the carrier, notice of claims fell outside its scope: “Under the 2002 Agreement, Philadelphia expressly allowed [Agent] to act as an insurance broker and sell Philadelphia policies as Philadelphia’s representative, subject to Philadelphia’s approval.  The 2002 Agreement is silent as to whether [Agent] had the ability to accept notice of claims on behalf of Philadelphia.  Thus, [Agent] did not have express authority to accept notice of claims.”  For the same reasons, an implied agency theory was also rejected.

The insurance coverage case of Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Advance Products & Systems, Inc. illustrates the recurring differences of opinion between the Fifth Circuit and district courts about contract ambiguity.  14-30068  (Jan. 27, 2015, unpublished).  When APS made a claim on its commercial property policy with Mt. Hawley, APS’s recovery was limited by a “coinsurance provision” that applies if it “has not insured the full value of its income.”  The parties differed on whether “income” referred to projected or actual net income; the district court found ambiguity, and the Fifth Circuit reversed: “Although APS has a point—the language used in calculating the coinsurance penalty is imprecise—it does not render the contract ambiguous.”  Based on the relationship between this provision and other parts of the policy, and the general purposes of coinsurance clauses, the Court reversed a summary judgment for the insured.

Lexington Relocation Services sued Gum Tree Property Management and other defendants, alleging that a former employee had been hired by them to perform “substantially the same marketing and sales tasks that she had previously performed, in violation of her employment agreement.”  Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Gum Tree Property Management, No. 14-60302 (Jan. 14, 2015, unpublished).  Gum Tree sought defense and indemnity under several CGL and umbrella policies; the district court ruled for the insurer and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.  The Court held that the insured did not successfully invoke a “narrow exception” under Mississippi law that can base coverage on “true facts” learned by the insurer beyond what a pleading says, noting that the exception does not reach “simpl[e] denials of the allegations in the complaint” or other “mere assertions.”  The Court then found that the pleading did not make allegations about disparagement, invasion of privacy, or advertising injury.

Class action suits alleged that First Community Bank mismanaged its customers’ bank accounts.  The bank’s insurer admitted that there would be coverage under the professional liability policy, but for the “fee dispute exclusion” [excluding claims “based upon, arising out of or attributable to any dispute involving fees or charges for an Insured’s services”]. While the collection of excessive overdraft fees was a major part of the pleadings, “at least some” of their allegations dealt with “First Community’s providing misleading information on its account practices and customers’ account balances . . . that do not have a causal connection to a disagreement that necessarily includes fees.”  Accordingly, under Texas’s “eight corners” rule, the Fifth Circuit affirmed judgment for the insured as to the duty to defend.  First Community Bancshares v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., No. 13-50657 (Nov. 14, 2014, unpublished).

Consistent with a 2014 line of cases that reversed summary judgments on credibility issues, the Fifth Circuit reversed a summary judgment for the insurer in a bad faith case in Santacruz v. Allstate Texas Lloyds, No. 13-10786 (Nov. 13, 2014, unpublished).  The insured alleged inadequate investigation into her claim of covered wind damage to her home, and the Court found fact issues on two matters.

First, as to liability for bad faith, the Court noted: “The extent of Allstate’s inquiry into the claim consisted of its adjuster taking photographs of the damaged home. Significantly, Allstate did not attempt to talk to the contractor, who submitted an affidavit in this case describing what he observed concerning the roof and attributing the cause to wind damage. Nor is there any evidence showing that Allstate obtained weather reports or inquired with neighbors to see if they suffered similar damage, which would tend to show the damage was caused by wind rather than normal wear and tear.”

Second, as to damages, the Court said: “Santacruz claimed three types of damages: (1) the replacement of the roof, supported by an invoice from Pedraza providing that Santacruz paid him $3,900 to repair the roof; (2) a list of damaged personal and household items compiled by Santacruz and his family with an estimate of the value of all the belongings; and (3) repair work needed for the damaged interior of the home, supported by an estimate from a contractor listing the repairs to be done. Further, Pedraza submitted an affidavit testifying to the necessity of repairing the roof, and Santacruz submitted photographs showing the extensive damage to the home’s interior to support his claim that repairs were necessary.”

In a reversal on rehearing from the original panel opinion, based on answers to certified questions in another matter in the meantime, the Court held in Crownover v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co.: “In sum, [Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 327 S.W.3d 118, 124, 127 (Tex. 2010) and Ewing Constr. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 420 S.W.3d 30, 37 (Tex. 2014)], maintain that for a contractual-liability exclusion to apply, the insurer must prove that a contractually-assumed duty effected an expansion of liability beyond that supplied by general law. The arbitrator in this case determined that Arrow violated an express duty to repair work that did not conform to the requirements of its construction contract with the Crownovers. Mid-Continent has failed to proffer evidence creating a dispute of fact as to whether the arbitrator’s award was based on liability greater than that dictated by general law. Therefore, the contractual-liability exclusion from coverage does not apply.”  No. 11-10166 (Oct. 29, 2014, on petition for rehearing).

River Oaks, an apartment management business originally based entirely in Louisiana, expanded into Mississippi in 2011.  It had a workers comp policy with Bridgefield Insurance, which provided “Other States” coverage for Mississippi if River Oaks notified Bridgefield of activity there.  After an employee’s injury in Mississippi, Bridgefield denied coverage for failure to comply with this notice requirement.  Bridgefield Casualty Ins. Co. v. River Oaks Management, Inc., No. 13-31077 (Oct. 27, 2014, unpublished).

Bridgefiled won the coverage dispute in district court, and the Fifth Circuit agreed that: (1) the provision was not ambiguous; (2) the provision was a condition precedent to coverage, so Bridgefield did not have to show prejudice from the lack of notice; and (3) for similar reasons, the provision did not implicate the Louisiana “anti-technical” statutes.

But, the Court found a material fact issue and reversed — agreeing with the district court that there was a factual dispute about whether an audit by Bridgefield put it on notice of the Mississippi activity (and accepted payments after that time), the Court disagreed with the district court’s conclusion that the dispute was not material: “An insurer may waive a provision that falls short of granting it the right to cancel the entire policy, such as the exclusion-of-coverage provision at issue here.”

Holden, an employee of Buck Kreihs Company (“BKS”), was injured while removing a gangway that connected BKS’s dock to a barge owned by U.S. United Ocean Services (“United”).  Holden and United settled their litigation, and United’s liability insurer won summary judgment in United’s suit for insurance coverage.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed in Holden v. U.S. United Ocean Services, L.L.C., No. 12-30251 (Sept. 15, 2014, unpublished).  The policy — actually issed to BKS, but with United as an additional insured — had a “watercraft” exclusion.  The exclusion would otherwise apply to the barge, except for an exemption for a contract under which “the ‘Named Insured’ assumes the tort liability of another party for ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to a third party or organization.”  The majority found that United was not a named insured, and that the exemption was best read to reach claims by an injured claimant against BKS — not claims by an additional insured for its own liability to the claimant.  A dissent argued that this reading did not give effect to the precise terms used in the policy.

Pioneer suffered an oil well blowout and paid millions to restore order.  It sued for reimbursement under its umbrella policy and the Fifth Circuit affirmed judgment for the insurer, based largely on the broad language of the relevant exclusions.  Pioneer Exploration LLC v. Steadfast Ins. Co., No. 13-30802 (Sept. 22, 2014).  Pioneer argued that the “owned, rented or occupied” exclusion did not apply to a mineral lease.  The Court disagreed, noting that the mineral lease gave Pioneer some control over surface land, and that the broad language of the exclusion reached activity associated with oil production (citing Aspen Ins. UK, Ltd. v. Dune Energy, Inc., No. 10-30335 (5th Cir. Nov. 8, 2010, unpublished)).  Further, noting that Louisiana law allowed debate as to whether an “owned property” exclusion reached remediation costs incurred to minimize liability to third parties, the Court found that this exclusion “specifically excludes containment costs” (reviewing Norfolk Southern Corp. v. California Union Ins., 859 So. 2d 167 (La. App. 2003)).”  Finally, as to another exclusion, the Court found that the insured could not meaningfully allocate expense “between controlling costs and plugging costs.”

The Fifth Circuit returned to the tension between excess and primary carriers in RSUI Indemnity Co. v. American States Ins. Co., a bad faith case under Louisiana law.  After a review of the cases on the issue, the Court held “that under the circumstances of this case, where an excess carrier alleges that a primary insurer in bad faith breached its duty to defend a common insured properly and caused exposure of the insured to an increase in the settlement value of the case above the primary policy limit, which the excess insurer must then satisfy on the insured’s behalf, the excess insurer has a subrogated cause of action against the primary insurer for any payment above what it otherwise would have been required to pay.”  No. 14-30033 (Sept. 25, 2014).

ExxonMobil sued US Metals, alleging over $6 million in damages from defects in a set of 350 “weld neck flanges.”  US Metals sought CGL coverage from Liberty.  U.S. Metals, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., No. 1320433 (Sept. 19, 2014, unpublished). Liberty denied US Metals’s request, based on the “your product” and “impaired” property exclusions in the policy, which turned on the terms “physical injury” and “replacement” in those exclusions.   The Fifth Circuit noted a lack of Texas authority as to whether those terms are ambiguous in this context, and no clear answer in other opinions that have addressed them. Accordingly, the Court certified two questions to the Texas Supreme Court: (1) whether those terms, as used in these exclusions, are ambiguous; and (2) if so, whether the insured’s interpretation is reasonable.  The Court observed that the interpretation of these terms “will have far-reaching implications” and “affect a large number of litigants.”  That Court accepted the certification request today.

The Baptists bought a home insurance policy from Nationwide in 2006.  In 2008, they lost their home to foreclosure.  They remained in the house, however, until December 2011 — before a court-ordered eviction date of January 13, 2012, but after fire did serious damage to the house in December.  They made a claim on the Nationwide policy, which discovered that they no longer owned the house as part of its post-loss investigation. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Baptist, No. 13-60726 (Aug. 7, 2014).  While Nationwide won a summary judgment about coverage on the ground that the Baptists no longer had an insurable interest by the time of the fire, the Fifth Circuit affirmed because the Baptists’ “renewals of their policy constituted their affirmations to Nationwide of their initial application for insurance, material portions of which were no longer true.”  Those misstatements allowed Nationwide to rescind the policy under Mississippi law.

The issue does not come up every day, but it can be critical when it surfaces.  “A civil action in any State court arising under the workmen’s compensation laws of such State may not be removed to any district court of the United States.”  28 U.S.C. § 1445(c).  The defendant argued for removal based on common-law bad faith claims — an argument that once worked — but amendments to Texas law meant that “claims of bad faith no longer arise outside of the workers’ compensation laws.”  Trahan v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., No. 13-20717 (June 10, 2014, unpublished) (citing Tex. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ruttiger, 381 S.W.3d 430 (Tex. 2012)).  Accordingly, the case returned to state court.

A vessel sank while in the harbor for repairs.  Afterwards, the insurer sued its insured (the harbor operator) and the vessel owner, to dispute coverage.  National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. v. R&R Marine, Inc., No. 10-20767 (June 30, 2014).  The insurer argued that the vessel owner had no standing under Texas law when it made a claim against the insurer, as there was no final judgment establishing the insured’s liability at that time.  The plaintiff countered that it was “forced” to assert its claim as a compulsory counterclaim under the Federal Rules.  The Fifth Circuit concluded that — although Texas state law barred the timing of the vessel owner’s counterclaim, it arose out of the same occurrence as and had a logical relationship to the coverage dispute.  Accordingly, the counterclaim was compulsory.  Treating it as such also “permitted the district court to efficiently address all disputes arising from the litigation” and was consistent with the Rules’ goal of only “alter[ing] the mode of enforcing state-created rights.”

A 1404(a) dispute was affirmed in Empire Indemity Ins. Co. v. N-S Corp., where “almost all non-party witnesses and all sources of proof needed to determine whether damages were covered by Empire’s policy are in, or around, Texas, and subject to the district court’s compulsory subpoena power.”  No. 13-40426 (June 12, 2014, unpublished).  On the merits, an aggrieved car wash operator sued its parts supplier and won a verdict for over $3 million.  Several months later, the parts supplier and its primary carrier settled with the plaintiff, all parties mutually released all claims against each other, and the parts supplier assigned its claims against its excess carrier to the plaintiff.  The excess carrier won summary judgment and the Fifth Circuit affirmed: “Following a release, the releasor cannot sue the releasee’s insurer ‘because the release precludes the prerequisite determination of [releasee’s liablity.'”  (quoting Angus Chem. Co. v. IMC Fertilizer, Inc., 939 S.W.2d 138 (Tex. 1997)).

“It would . . . be an unreasonable interpretation of the policies to say that they provide for valuation as of the date of . . . discovery since no loss occurs at that point.  The most appropriate date to use in calculating [plaintiff’s] losses is that date of the foreclosure sales, as that is when [plaintiff] incurred covered losses.”  First American Bank v. First American Transportation Title Ins. Co., No. 13-30888 (July 16, 2014)

The coverage dispute in Wiszia Co. v. General Star Indemnity Co. involved a lawsuit in which “Jefferson Parish essentially asserted Wisznia improperly designed a building and did not adequately coordinate with the builders during its construction.” No. 13-31125 (July 16, 2014).  Reviewing the allegations under Louisiana’s eight-corners rule, and summarizing the extensive Louisiana jurisprudence on the topic, the Fifth Circuit found that the claim fell within the policy’s professional services exclusion.   Under those authorities, mere use of the word “‘negligence’ is insufficient to obligate a professional liability insurer to defend the insured,” and “the factual allegations in the Jefferson Parish petition here do not give rise to an ordinary claim for negligence—such as an unreasonably dangerous work site.”

1.  No conflict-of-interest.  In Graper v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., No. 13-20099 (June 24, 2014), the Fifth Circuit revisited the potential conflict-of-interest issues relating to counsel selected by an insurance carrier, previously addressed in Downhole Navigator LLC v. Nautilus Insurance, 686 F.2d 325 (5th Cir. 2012).  Reminding that a problematic conflict would only arise if “the facts to be adjudicated in the underlying lawsuit are the same facts upon which coverage depends,” the Court found no disqualifying conflict in either: (a) the facts of when a claim accrued for limitations purposes, as opposed to when it occurred under the policy, or (b) the facts about an alleged willful copyright infringement occurs, as opposed to a “knowing” act for coverage purposes.  

2.  No exhaustion.  The excess carriers in Indemnity Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. W&T Offshore, Inc. contended that they had no coverage obligation when the underlying policies had been exhausted.  No. 13-20512 (June 23, 2014).  Distinguishing Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Stewart & Stevenson Services., Inc., 31 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied), the Court disagreed, finding that the policy “merely outlines what will happen if the underlying insurance is entirely exhausted by claims covered under the policy; it says nothing about what will happen if the Retained Limit is exhausted by non-covered claims.” A deftly-written footnote 5 explains how the excess carriers’ argument relies on the logical fallacy of “affirming the consequent.”

The plaintiffs in Crownover v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co. won an arbitration claim based on the “breach of the express warranty to repair” in their contract with an HVAC installation company.  No. 11-10166 (June 27, 2014).  The Fifth Circuit, applying Gilbert Texas Construction LP v. Underwriters of Lloyd’s London, 327 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. 2010) and the recent response to a certification request in Ewing Construction Co. v. Amierisure Ins. Co., 420 S.W.3d 30 (Tex. 2014), concluded that CGL coverage was not available: “Whereas contractually agreeing to repair damage resulting from a failure to exercise reasonable care in performing the work or agreeing to perform work in a good and workmanlike manner would mirror a contractor’s duty under general law . . . contractually agreeing to repair damage resulting from a failure to comply with the requirements of the contract would not.”  Law360 has a good article about the development of this important insurance coverage issue over the last several months.

In Tetra Technologies, Inc v. Continental Ins. Co., the district court ruled on several key issues in an insurance coverage dispute, declined to certify the rulings for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) because it found no substantial ground for difference of opinion, and entered judgment on those matters pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).  No. 13-30516 (June 10, 2014).  The Fifth Circuit found that judgment improper, and thus dismissed on jurisdictional grounds for lack of a final and appealable order. Rather than sounding the “death knell” of claims as required by Rule 54, the Court concluded that the rulings would allow “Tetra and Maritech to prevail completely nor not at all on their indemnification claim against Continental, depending on the resolution of certain ‘factual issues.'”  “Thus, what we are presented with here is a request by the district court for us to sign off mid-litigation on legal questions it considers non-contentions.  Since the inception of the federal judiciary, however, our role has been to review final decisions of trial courts, not to tinker with ongoing cases through piecemeal appeals . . . “

A company received “PRP” (Potentially Responsible Party) letters from the EPA, followed by a “Unilateral Administrative Order” requiring the company to do remedial work.  Its CGL insurer denied coverage, contending that these administrative communications under CERCLA were not a “suit” that triggered the duty to defend.  McGinnes Industrial Maintenance Corp. v. Phoenix Ins. Co., No. 13-20360 (June 11, 2014, unpublished).  The insured argued that the word “suit” was ambiguous and thus led to coverage; the insurer argued that a broad reading of “suit” was inconsistent with the word “claim” in the policy and the word “petition” in the usual phrasing of the Texas “eight corners” rule.  Finding the issue important and that “the parties each make reasonable arguments” about it, the Fifth Circuit certified this question to the Texas Supreme Court: “Whether the EPA’s PRP letters and/or unilateral administrative order, issued pursuant to CERCLA, constitute a ‘suit’ within the meaning of the CGL policies, triggering the duty to defend.”  That Court has now answered yes and the case has been remanded for further proceedings.

The Twombly line of cases emphasizes the importance of detail in pleading.  In the insurance context, however, too much detail can defeat coverage.  In State Farm v. Moseley, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a summary judgment for an automobile insurer as to the duty to indemnify, concluding that a “volunteer driver” for a healthcare provider fell within the policy’s “for a charge” exclusion.  The driver received compensation that, while focused on reimbursement for expenses, could yield profit depending on the route taken and the number of passengers.  As to the duty to defend, however, the Court reversed, finding that the following pleading did not unambiguously trigger the exclusion, as it did not allege that “(1) [Plaintiff] gave [Defendant] any payment for transporting her; (2) [Defendant] was operating a taxi service; or (3) the specific amount of compensation [Defendant] received for transporting [Plaintiff]”:

“11.  Upon information and belief, Defendant Elizabeth W. Mosley, owned, operated, and controlled, or in the alternative, was doing business as Mosley’s Transportation. Upon information and belief, the Defendant, Elizabeth W. [Mosley], owned, operated, and controlled, or in the alter- native, was doing business as LogistiCare of MS. Further, upon infor- mation and belief, the Defendant, Elizabeth W. Mosley . . . is in the business of transporting patients to and from their medical treatment facilities.

12. The Defendant, LogistiCare Solutions, LLC, in the regular course of business, operates and maintains a non-emergency medical transportation services business . . . .

13. That on or about March 19, 2010, the Deceased, Pearlie Graham, was being transported by the Defendant, Elizabeth W. Mosley, and riding as a guest passenger in a vehicle being driven and operated by the Defendant, Elizabeth W. Mosley, Individually and d/b/a Mosley’s Transportation and/or d/b/a LogistiCare of MS, or in the alternative, [] was acting in furtherance of and within the course and scope of her employment with Defendant, LogistiCare Solutions, LLC . . . . “

1.  The Fifth Circuit vacated its panel opinion in Sawyer v. duPont to certify two questions to the Texas Supreme Court — paraphrased slightly, they were (1) whether an at-will employee can sue for fraud for loss of employment, and (2) whether a 60-day “cancellation-upon-notice” collective bargaining agreement would change a “no” answer to (1).  The Texas Supreme Court has now answered those questions: “no” as to the basic question about a fraud claim arising from at-will employment, and “in the situation presented, no” to the second question about the effect of the CBA.  “The Employees argue that it would contravene public policy to allow an employer to benefit from its duplicity, but public policy is not better served by allowing contracting parties to circumvent their agreement.”  No. 12-0626 (Tex. April 25, 2014).  (The Fifth Circuit formally adopted that reasoning and affirmed on June 11, 2014).

2.  Similarly, the Court vacated its panel opinion in Ewing Construction v. Amerisure Insurance Corp. to certify the question whether a CGL policy’s “Contractual Liability Exclusion” would reach a contract in which a contractor commits to work in a “good and workmanlike manner.”  The Texas Supreme Court answered “no”: “[A] general contractor who agrees to perform its construction work in a good and workmanlike manner, without more, does not enlarge its duty to exercise ordinary care in fulfilling its contract, thus it does not ‘assume liability’ for damages arising out its defective work so as to trigger the Contractual Liability Exclusion.”  No. 12-0661 (Tex. Jan. 17, 2014).  The opinion has been called a “significant reassurance” to policyholders in the construction business.

Rowland Trucking’s insurance policy required that it maintain a fence around the entirety of its property.  The fence had gaps on the south and west side.  Thieves entered on the east side and stole $350,000 in videogame consoles.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed judgment for the insured under the Texas Anti-Technicality Statute, which provides: “Unless the breach or violation contributed to cause the destruction of the property, a breach or violation by the insured of a warranty, condition, or provision of a fire insurance policy or contract of insurance on personal property, or of an application for the policy or contract: (1) does not render the policy or contract void; and (2) is not a defense to a suit for loss.”  W.W. Rowland Trucking Co. v. Max America Insurance, No. 13-20341 (Feb. 24, 2014, unpublished).  The Court sidestepped an argument that the statute did not reach liability policies, finding that the policy here was a property policy notwithstanding its occasional use of the word “liability.”

Plaintiff Jongh sued “State Farm Lloyds” and Johnson, a local insurance adjuster, relating to the handling of her property insurance claim for storm damage.  Jongh v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 13-20174 (Feb. 20, 2014, unpublished).  State Farm answered and removed, arguing that (1) Johnson was improperly joined to destroy diversity; (2) Jongh had improperly named Lloyds, a separate entity; and (3) State Farm and Jongh were diverse.  The trial court ruled for the defendants after a 1-day bench trial.   The Fifth Circuit agreed with Plaintiff — who appears to have raised subject matter jurisdiction for the first time on appeal — that “State Farm never became a party in this action. Jongh did not  name State Farm as a defendant in her original petition; although it asserted in its answer and notice of removal that Jongh incorrectly named Lloyds as a defendant, State Farm did not move to intervene or otherwise request that the district court substitute it as the proper party in interest.”  The Court noted that Plaintiff, the “master of her complaint,” consistently asserted that her claim was against Lloyds and not State Farm.  The judgment was vacated and the case remanded.

In Star-Tex Resources, LLC v. Granite State Ins. Co., the parties disputed whether an “auto exclusion” barred coverage in a personal injury case.  553 F. App’x 366 (5th Cir. 2014).  The Fifth Circuit concluded that it was not possible to determine coverage form the plaintiff’s pleading: “The complaint contains only one, brief sentence describing the facts of the accident. Importantly, it contains no description of how Esquivel caused the collision.”  Therefore, it was appropriate to consider extrinsic evidence (beyond the “eight corners” of the pleading and policy) that the insured was driving a car at the time of the accident, as it was relevant to coverage and by itself did not go to liability, citing Northfield Ins. Co. v. Loving Home Care, Inc., 363 F.3d 523 (2004).

The Fifth Circuit found that a subcontractor’s CGL carrier had no duty to defend a construction defect claim against the general contractor.  Carl E. Woodward LLC v. Acceptance Indemnity Ins. Co., No. 12-60561 (Feb. 11, 2014). The pleading alleged that the general contractor, through its subcontractor, “built the foundation piers in non-conformity with plans and specifications.” An accompanying engineer’s report provided detail about related drainage problems.  The Court concluded that the policy language meant that “claims for liability can be brought after ongoing operations are complete, but the underlying liability cannot be due to the ‘completed operations.'”  A contrary holding, reasoned the Court, “effectively converts a CGL policy into a performance bond.”   Here, “[e]ven accepting the district court’s factual finding that damage had occurred during ongoing operations, the only ‘damage’ supported by allegation is the construction that was not in conformity with plans and specifications,” and “[l]iability for such damages arising out of completed operations . . . .”  Law360 has recently published an analysis of this opinion.  An opinion denying rehearing elaborates on the role of the engineering report.

The Fifth Circuit released a revised opinion in James v. State Farm, which continues to affirm in part and reverse in part a summary judgment for the defendant in an insurance bad-faith case based on delays in handling the claim.  The majority tightens its description of the requirements for punitive damages under Mississippi law, the dissent heightens its criticism of the majority’s reasoning as to the applicable standard and analytical framework.

Mississippi law allows a “bad faith” claim relating to handling of workers’ compensation; Alabama law does not.  Williams, a Mississippi resident, was injured in Mississippi while working for an Alabama resident contract.  Williams v. Liberty Mutual, No. 11-60818 (Jan. 28, 2014).  The Fifth Circuit reversed the choice-of-law question, finding that section 145 of the Restatement (governing tort claims) applied rather than other provisions for contract claims.  Under that framework, Mississippi would give particular weight to the place of injury, and thus apply Mississippi law. The opinion highlights the importance of the threshold issue of properly characterizing a claim before beginning the actual choice-of-law analysis.

In 2012, the Fifth Circuit held that for purposes of the duty to defend, a mishap while loading a patient into an ambulance was “use” of an auto.  Litigation continued, and the district court concluded that for purposes of the duty to indemnify (where the inquiry is not limited to the “eight corners”), the injury did not arise from auto use.  National Casualty Co. v. Western World Ins., 12-50652 (Jan. 15, 2014, unpubl.)  The Fifth Circuit reaffirmed its earlier conclusion that it did, and also remanded for further review of a potentially applicable exclusion about auto use: “If the EMTs in fact failed to properly secure Rigsby to the gurney before they began to move her toward the ambulance, and if Rigsby’s injury resulted from this failure, Western World’s auto exclusion is inapplicable.” The facts of this case illustrate some awkwardness in common form insurance provisions in this area.

Boyett v. Redland Ins. Co. examined whether a forklift is a “motor vehicle” within the meaning of Louisiana’s uninsured motorist statute, and concluded that it is one.  No. 12-31273 (Jan. 27, 2014).  Its Erie analysis illustrates a feature of Louisiana’s civil law system that bedevils outsiders.  On the one hand, a court “must look first to Louisiana’s Constitution, its codes, and statutes, because the ‘primary basis of law for a civilian is legislation, and not (as in the common law) a great body of tradition in the form of prior decisions of the courts.’ Unlike in common law systems, ‘[s]tare decisis is foreign to the Civil Law, including Louisiana.'”  On the other hand, “[W]hile a single decision is not binding on [Louisiana’s] courts, when a series of decisions form a constant stream of uniform and homogenous rulings having the same reasoning, jurisprudence constante applies and operates with considerable persuasive authority.”

In Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Doubletree Partners, L.P., the title insurance company mistakenly left key provisions out of a policy due to a software problem, while the insured’s surveyor erroneously measured the extent of a “flowage easement” held on the development property by Lake Lewisville.  No. 12-40692 (Jan. 14, 2014).  The Fifth Circuit held: (1) reformation was justified, because the insured had reason to know of the title company’s unilateral mistake; (2) both sides had reasonable interpretations of (a) the scope of coverage for survey error, (b) the ‘flowage easement exception,’ (c) and the ‘created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to’ exception, so coverage appeared likely. Summary judgment for the insurer was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.  A sanctions award against the insured’s counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 in connection with extracontractual claims was reversed for lack of bad faith by the attorneys.

BAL Metals stored roughly $500,000 of copper in a warehouse operated by Mundell Terminal Services.  Thieves stole the copper.  BAL Metals’ insurance carrier paid the claim and then sued the warehouse as BAL’s subrogee.  United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Mundell Terminal Servs., Inc., No. 13-50052 (Jan. 23, 2014). The warehouse asked its carrier for defense and indemnity, coverage litigation ensued, and the district court granted summary judgment for the warehouse’s carrier.  It reasoned that because a bailor is presumed to insure a bailee’s interest as well as its own under Texas law, the policy was “other insurance” to BAL’s coverage.  The Court noted that the warehouse had a first-party property damage policy rather than liability coverage.  The Court also concluded that another coverage argument, about the characterization of the metal under the policy’s definition of “property,” had been waived because it was not presented with enough specificity to the district court.

New York Life v. Cannatella involved the interpleader of life insurance benefits.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the award of $750 in attorneys fees to the insurance company who filed the action, agreeing that the company was “disinterested,” and identifying these factors about a fee award to a party in its position: “1) whether the case is simple or involved; 2) whether the stakeholder performed any unique services for the claimants or the court; 3) whether the stakeholder acted in good faith and with diligence; 4) whether the services rendered benefited the stakeholder; and 5) whether the claimants improperly protracted the proceedings.”  No. 12-30663 (Dec. 23, 2013, unpublished).

Seventy property owners sued St. Bernard Parish, alleging that it wrongfully demolished their properties in the wake of Hurricane Katrina (which flooded virtually every structure in that hard-hit area).  The Parish’s insurer disputed coverage.  Lexington Ins. Co. v. St. Bernard Parish Gov’t, No. 13-30300 (Dec. 6, 2013, unpublished).  Among other arguments, the insurer argued that there was no coverage because the policy had a $250,000 retention limit per occurrence, and each demolition (none of which involved more than that amount) should be viewed as a separate occurrence.  The district court and Fifth Circuit ruled for the Parish.  The Fifth Circuit noted that the limit applied “separately to each and every occurrence . . . or series of continuous, repeated, or related occurrences,” and that the phrase “related” has a broad meaning in the insurance context, covering logical or causal connections between acts or occurrences.   Here: “[T]he acts alleged in the underlying actions are related because they all resulted from St. Bernard’s ordinance condemning those properties that remained in disrepair following Hurricane Katrina. The fact that the properties in the underlying action were demolished at different times, in varying degrees, and at different locations, does not mean that these acts are not related.”

A REIT sued the City of College Station, alleging that its zoning decisions were unconstitutionally irrational and unfair.  The City’s CGL policy covered liability arising from “wrongful act[s]” of city officials, with an exclusion for liability arising from eminent domain or condemnation proceedings.  City of College Station v. Star Insurance, No. 12-20746 (Nov. 14, 2013).  The district court granted summary judgment for the insurer and the Fifth Circuit reversed: “As [the REIT’s] constitutional and tortious interference claims may produce liablity that does not ‘arise out of’ [its] inverse condemnation action, [the insurer] is liable for the City’s defense costs.”

A subcontractor’s policy excluded “property damage” to “your work.”  An endorsement added the general contractor as an additional insured “only with respect to liability for . . . ‘property damage’ . . . caused, in whole or in part, by . . . [y]our acts or omissions.”  “The policy defined “you” and “your” with reference to the subcontractor and the endorsement did not purport to modify that definition.  State Farm Auto Ins. v. Harrison County, No. 13-60001 (Sept. 16, 2013, unpublished).  The insurer argued that the additional insured could only “stand[] in shoes no larger than those worn by the primary policyholder.”  The Fifth Circuit did not disagree, but found that this specific endorsement created ambiguity when read along with the original policy, and thus affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of coverage.

The insured estimated loss from a hailstorm at a shopping center at close to $1 million; the insurer estimated $17,000.  TMM Investments v. Ohio Casualty Insurance, No. 12-40635 (Sept. 17, 2013).  The insurer invoked its contractual right for an appraisal, which came in around $50,000.  The insured sued, alleging that the appraisal improperly excluded damages to the HVAC system and that the panel exceeded its authority by considering causation issues.  Applying State Farm Lloyds v. Johnson, 290 S.W.3d 886 (Tex. 2009), the Fifth Circuit agreed on the HVAC issue, but did not see that as a reason to invalidate the entire award, and reasoned that the appraisers were within their authority when they “merely distinguished damage caused by pre-existing conditions from damage caused by the storm . . . .”

Two employees entered a series of unauthorized loan transactions on behalf of their employer and took the proceeds.  BJ Services v. Great American Insurance Co., No. 12-20527 (Sept. 6, 2013, unpublished).  The employer’s carrier denied coverage, arguing that the losses did not “directly” result from employee dishonesty, in part because the company never actually got the money.  The district court agreed but the Fifth Circuit reversed, noting that the employees had “apparent” authority to enter the transactions, even if they did not have “actual” authority, and thus created binding contracts on behalf of their employer that made the losses “direct” within the meaning of the policy.

On rehearing, the Fifth Circuit withdrew its original opinion and substituted a certification request to the Texas Supreme Court in Ranger Insurance v. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., No. 12-30230 (Aug. 29, 2013).  The request asks for guidance about Evanston Ins. Co. v. ATOFINA Petrochems., Inc., 256 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. 2008), and whether (1) it compels coverage for BP under the language of umbrella insurance policies if contractual “additional insured” and indemnity provisions are “separate and independent,” and (2) whether the contra proferentem doctrine would apply to the contract containing those provisions.  Thanks to Don Cruse’s SCOTX blog for picking this up, and that blog will be following the handling of the request in the state court.

Deep Marine Technology provided construction support vessels to BHP, an offshore drilling company.  A BHP contractor sued for injuries arising from an “offshore personnel basket transfer” between a Deep Marine vessel and a BHP platform.  There was no dispute that the parties’ Master Services Agreement required BHP to defend and indemnify Deep Marine from this claim.  The issue in Duval v. Northern Assurance Co. was whether BHP had to defend and indemnify Deep Marine’s insurers, who were joined to the litigation under Louisiana’s Direct Action Statute.  No. 12-31102 (July 5, 2013).  The Fifth Circuit noted that indemnity provisions are strictly construed and that: “The parties could have included the Contractor’s insurers within the definition of ‘Contractor Group,’ as parties in other cases have done . . . . ” (citation omitted).  Based on that conclusion, the Court rejected several theories about how the insurers could benefit from the indemnity provision, and affirmed summary judgment against them.

James v. State Farm involved the appeal of summary judgment for the insurer in a bad faith case brought under Mississippi law, in which State Farm “tendered the policy limit on its uninsured motor vehicle coverage to [Appellant] nearly thirty months after [she] was injured in a car accident.”  No. 11-60458 (June 21, 2013).  The majority opinion reversed in part, working through the delay and finding that State Farm lacked a justification for delay during certain portions of the thirty-month period.  The dissent took a different approach, stating: “The district court’s more holistic approach of evaluating whether State Farm’s actions throughout the course of its investigation rose to the level of an independent tort is more in line with precedent.”

On June 18, two separate panels — one addressing a chemical spill, the other a vessel crash into an oil well — reached the same conclusion in published opinions:  when an insured fails to give notice within the agreed-upon period, as required by a “negotiated buyback” endorsement to a policy, the insurer does not have to show prejudice to void coverage.   Settoon Towing LLC v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., No. 11-31030; Starr Indemnity & Liability Co. v. SGS Petroleum Service Corp., No. 12-20545.  The notice provision was seen as part of the basic bargain struck about coverage.  Both opinions — especially Starr, arising under Texas law — recognized the continuing viability of Matador Petroleum v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 174 F.3d 653 (5th Cir. 1989), in this situation, notwithstanding later Texas Supreme Court cases requiring prejudice in other contexts arising from the main body of a policy.  Settoon went on to address other issues under Louisiana insurance law, including whether the Civil Code concept of “impossibility,” which focuses on a failure to perform an obligation, applies to a failure to perform a condition precedent such as giving notice.

The EPA and its state equivalent sued the owner of the “Big Cajun II,” a coal power plant in Louisiana, seeking penalties, injunctive relief, and remediation of alleged environmental damage.  Louisiana Generating LLC v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., No. 12-30651 (May 15, 2013).  Applying New York law, the Fifth Circuit found that “Claims, remediation costs, and associated legal defense expenses . . . as a result of a pollution condition” potentially encompassed some of the relief sought by the EPA for past environmental problems.  The Court also found that an exclusion for “[p]ayment of criminal fines, criminal penalties, punitive, exemplary or injunctive relief” did not unambiguously exclude coverage for remediation required by an injunction order, reasoning that such a broad reading “would potentially swallow” the coverage for remediation costs.  Having found a duty to defend, the Court did not reach a question about whether New York law allowed indemnification for civil penalties imposed under the Clean Air Act.

The insurance policy said: “Whenever any Assured has information from which the Assured may reasonably conclude that an occurrence covered hereunder involves an event likely to involve this Policy, notice shall be sent to Underwriters as soon as practicable . . . ”  Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, No. 12-30705 (May 1, 2013, unpublished). Clarifying an earlier opinion (and mandate) about this notice provision, the Fifth Circuit held: “[T]he duty of coverage is triggered for each underwriter who receives notice under the policy. . . We do not, however, hold the converse of this conclusion.  In other words, we do not hold that all underwriters under the policy must receive notice as a condition precedent to a duty of coverage being triggered for any individual underwriter under the policy.”

Materials Evaluation and Technology Corporation (“METCO”) had a CGL policy from Mid-Continent that it renewed annually beginning in 1997.  The 2002 policy covered liability arising from a third-party contractual relationship while the 2003 policy did not.  Two METCO employees were injured at a DuPont facility, DuPont settled their claim and sought indemnity from METCO pursuant to their contract, and Mid-Continent denied coverage based on the 2003 policy.  Materials Evaluation & Tech Corp. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., No. 12-40186 (March 18, 2013, unpublished).  METCO appealed a summary judgment for the insurer, arguing that Texas law presumes that an insurance policy renews on the same terms as the original.  The Court reviewed METCO’s authority and found it was limited to those cases’ particular fact situations — generally involving a claim of misrepresentation or an issue of mutual mistake — and affirmed.

The Deepwater Horizon rig operated under a drilling contract between BP and Transocean.  The contract had indemnity provisions between BP and Transocean for pollution claims depending on whether the contamination originated above water.  The contract also required Transocean to maintain BP as an additional insured under Transocean’s liability coverage.  In Ranger Insurance v. Transocean Offshore, the parties agreed that BP was entitled to some coverage as an additional insured, but disputed whether that coverage reached pollution liability, since the spill originated below water in BP’s area of responsibility under the indemnity clauses.  No. 12-30230 (March 1, 2013).  The Fifth Circuit reasoned: (1) Texas law begins by examining the policy, which did not restrict pollution coverage when read in light of earlier cases involving similar clauses; (2) the terms of the drilling contract did not change that conclusion, as its indemnity provisions were sufficiently “discrete” from its additional insured provision.  The opinion reviews what the Court saw as a consistent line of Fifth Circuit and Texas authority about the interplay of indemnity and “additional insured” clauses.

In First American Title v. Continental Casualty, the Court analyzed a “claims-made-and-reported” policy under the Louisiana direct action statute, which allows an injured third party to directly sue the responsible party’s insurer.  No. 12-30336 (Feb. 28, 2013).   Notice was not given to the insurer during the required period.  The Court concluded that unlike an occurrence policy, where a notice requirement is intended to protect the insurer and a failure to give notice will not bar a direct action, proper notice under this policy was a condition precedent to coverage and thus barred the direct action.  A concurrence agreed with the result but advocated a narrower ground for decision.

The insured in Mid-Continent Casualty v. Eland Energy recovered a multi-million dollar verdict against its insurer, alleging that the insurer’s efforts to unilaterally settle a claim for environmental damage after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita undermined the defense of an ongoing class action about similar claims.  No. 11-10649 (Feb. 22, 2013).   The district court granted JNOV and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.  Recognizing that “[the insured] is understandably upset,” the court rejected a common-law duty of good faith under Texas law in the handling of third-party insurance claims, dismissing as dicta or distinguishing several cases cited by the insured.   Potential claims under Louisiana law failed for  choice-of-law reasons since the claim was handled in Texas. Claims based on the Texas Insurance Code failed to establish a causal link between the alleged misconduct and the ultimate settlement terms of the class action.

Hisaw & Associates General Contractors (“HIGAC”) defaulted on contracts, requiring Liberty Mutual to pay on a surety bond.  Liberty Mutual v. Hisaw & Associates, No. 11-11012 (Feb. 20, 2013, unpublished).  After it paid, Liberty Mutual sought recovery from HIGAC’s principals; the question for appeal was whether certain transactions involving them violated a covenant about a minimum asset requirement.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion that several payments to third parties by HAGC were not “received by” the principals under the contract, and that loan repayments by HAGC to its principals were not “as a result of . . . loans [to the principals].”  The Court then reversed in favor of the principals on whether a salary payment was a “distribution.”  The Court noted that Liberty Mutual could use more precise contract language, and faulted a senior Liberty Mutual counsel for changing testimony on a relevant issue during a deposition.

The insurers in Pride Transportation v. Continental Casualty faced a claim arising from a truck accident that left the victim a paraplegic, with evidence that the driver falsified her logs to make deliveries on time, and with plaintiff’s counsel who had won personal injury verdicts in the same county for amounts in excess of policy limits.  No. 11-10892 (Feb. 6, 2013, unpublished).  Under these circumstances, the Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that the insurers did not incur Stowers liability under Texas law for accepting (rather then rejecting, the classic Stowers fact pattern) a settlement offer at policy limits and then withdrawing from the defense of the insured trucking company.  The Court did not address potential issues arising from the specific release in this settlement (it only named the driver, and excluded the company) except to note that potential indemnity claims between them would fall within the “insured-v.-insured” exclusion.

The insured in Kerr v. State Farm filed a claim about a stolen fishing boat, but declined to give an examination under oath (EUO).  No. 12-30332 (Feb. 5, 2013, unpublished).  State Farm claimed that refusal was a material breach that prevented recovery on the policy.  The insured said that State Farm was not prejudiced.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for State Farm, citing “affidavits from members of [State Farm’s] Special Investigative Unit stating that an EUO is an important tool in the claim investigation process and that by refusing an EUO, Kerr impeded State Farm’s ability to gather information about the claim.”  The Court declined to address an argument by State Farm that prejudice need not be shown when an EUO is refused in a first-party case.

An apartment developer sought recovery on a title insurance policy after unfortunate zoning stopped the project.  Levy Gardens Partners v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance, No. 12-30010 (Jan. 31, 2013).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the finding of coverage, concluding, among other matters, that: (1) state court rulings about zoning laws deserved deference by federal courts in later coverage litigation; (2) the state court preliminary injunction litigation about zoning had become a sufficiently “final decree” to trigger coverage; (3) delay in giving notice did not cause prejudice; and (4) the policy did not require the developer to invoke a “conditional use process.”  The Court also found, however, that the policy “unambiguously restricts liability to the difference in the value of the title with and without the zoning encumbrance,” thus limiting the insured’s recovery to roughly $650,000 rather than several million in development expenses.  In rejecting the insured’s arguments about the policy, the Court also found no prejudicial violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c) about the pleading of defensive matters.

The insured in Jamestown Insurance v. Reeder successfully minimized its liability with a winning appeal to the Texas Supreme Court.  No. 12-20437 (Jan. 17, 2013, unpublished).  He only gave notice of a claim at that point, however, and despite the result, ran afoul of the concept that “[o]ne of the purposes of a notice provisions . . . is to allow an insurer ‘to form an intelligent estimate of its rights and liabilities before it is obligated to pay.'”  Id. at 5 (emphasis in original).  Because the insurer could have helped influence the trial result, or negotiated a settlement at the appellate level, the “delayed tender thwarted the recognized purposes of the notice provisions” and summary judgment was affirmed for the insurer.  Id.   

Several aspects of insurance coverage for hurricane damage to a shopping center were addressed in GBP Partners v. Maryland Casualty, No. 11-20912 (Jan. 4, 2013, unpublished).  The Fifth Circuit concluded that the insured: (1) did not establish a “complete interruption” of business activity to trigger coverage for lost income, (2) raised a fact issue as to whether rent abatements were necessary to prevent possible closure of the entire center, (3) did not distinguish repair fees necessary to avoid suspension of operations from other management fees, (4) the insured was responsible for various delays in replacing a damaged roof, and (5) did not allocate window damage between covered and non-covered causes.   The Court also found that a summary judgment affiant did not create an impermissible conflict with earlier deposition testimony that described the effect of the storm on business operations.  Id. at 6-7 & n.7.

The district court and Fifth Circuit agreed that fraud claims by dissatisfied consumers of weight loss medicine did not allege “bodily injury” so as to trigger a duty to defend.  CSA Nutraceuticals v. Chubb Custom Insurance, No. 12-10137 (Jan. 2, 2013, unpublished): “Failing to achieve weight reduction means the body basically did not change. It does not mean that the body was injured.”  The short opinion summarizes and rejects the plaintiff′s arguments for coverage.

The parties’ agreement said: “State Farm agrees not to remove any Hurricane Ike cases filed by your firm to Federal Court.”  Horn v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 12-40410 (Dec. 21, 2012).  Roughly a year later, the firm filed a 100,000-member class action against State Farm, who removed the case.  State Farm argued that the agreement was intended to resolve large numbers of individual claims and extending it to a class action was not consistent with the specific consideration given.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the remand order, finding that the terms “any” and “cases” were not ambiguous.  The Court’s emphasis on contract wording, especially in the insurance context, is consistent with other recent cases, see, e.g., Ballard v. Devon Energy, 678 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2012).

The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for an insurer, reasoning: “We do not consider mere use of the phrase ‘property damage’ and parroted Policy language as sufficient factual allegations.  None of the assertions of ‘property damage’ in the underlying lawsuits are accompanied by facts illustrating specific harm or damage to tangbile property.”  PPI Technology Services v. Liberty Mutual Ins., No. 12-40189 (Nov. 29, 2012).  The closest, an allegation that the insured suffered “property damage throughout the lease where the well was drilled,” was characterized as “simply stating that it owns the property in which the drilling occurred . . . .”  Id. at 10.  The case analyzes the pleadings under the Texas “eight-corner” test rather than Twombly or Iqbal.

In Sosebee v. Steadfast Insurance Co., the Fifth Circuit found that an insurer made an effective reservation of rights, reminding that “Louisiana follows a functional approach to the reservation of rights and we have rejected requirements for technical language . . . .”  No. 11-31134 (Nov. 27, 2012) (citing FDIC v. Duffy, 47 F.3d 146, 151 (5th Cir. 1995)).  The Court then analyzed whether the insurer waived that reservation, in the unusual setting of a direct action suit against the insurer while the insured was in bankruptcy.  Finding no harm or prejudice to the insured from the conduct at issue, the Court held that no waiver occurred, and reversed and rendered summary judgment for the insurer.

A series of clerical errors led an insurer to overpay a $710,000 settlement by $510,000.  National Casualty v. Kiva Construction, No. 12-20217 (Nov. 12, 2012).  The insurer sued for breach of contract and “money had and received”; the insured counterclaimed for bad faith in the initial handling of the settlement.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for the insurer.  The Court’s straightforward, unpublished opinion offers two cautionary notes — first, while the settlement agreement did not specify a time for payment of the full amount, a Lousiana statute did so specify (although the insurer complied), and second, the Twombly standards are not in play when the district court obviously considered evidence outside of the pleadings and said in its order that the counterclaims failed “based on the undisputed facts.”

ACE American Insurance v. Freeport Welding presents a thorough analysis of coverage, in the duty to defend context, under Texas law for a party claiming to be an “additional insured.”  No. 12-20002 (Oct. 19, 2012).  Before analyzing the allegations under Texas’s “eight corners” rule, the Court first reviewed whether the party was within the scope of the policy under general contract principles, and found that it was not.  The key to the Court’s analysis was the clarity of the policy documents about the dates for coverage.  Summary judgment was affirmed for the insurer as to the duty to defend, and the related indemnity issues were remanded for further consideration in light of the parties’ settlement.

In Cambridge Integrated Services Group v. Concentra Integrated Services, after reminding that a district court located in a state does not get deference in making an Erie guess about that state’s law, the Fifth Circuit examined the effect of a release obtained by an indemnitor for potential claims against its indemnitee.  No. 11-31032 (Sept. 26, 2012).  The Court found that the release precisely matched the terms of the indemnitor’s obligations to the indemnitee, and thus extinguished its duty to indemnify against such claims in ongoing litigation.  As to the duty to defend, however, the Court found summary judgment improper as issues about the claims “remained to be clarified through litigation.”  Id. at 10.

Echoing its recent action in Sawyer v. du Pont, the Fifth Circuit withdrew its previous opinion in Ewing Construction v. Amerisure Insurance and certified two questions to the Texas Supreme Court about the scope of the “contractual liability” exclusion in a construction contractor’s CGL policy.  No. 11-40512 (Aug. 8, 2012).

“Does the failure to give notice to an excess carrier until after an adverse jury verdict constitute evidence of prejudice that forfeits coverage?”  Berkley Regional Ins. Co. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., 690 F.3d 342 (5th Cir. 2012).  The Court thoroughly reviewed Texas law about untimely claim notice, observing that it can void coverage if the insurer is prejudiced, but “[d]efining the contours of prejudice from the breach of a notice requirement . . . is not easy.”  It applied that general principle to excess carriers, and found that this carrier had raised fact issues about prejudice from untimely notice (here, after an adverse jury verdict), as it was unable to investigate the matter or participate in mediation: “The cows had long since left the barn when [the carrier] was invited to close the barn door.”

In an insurance coverage case that is also a careful review of basic contract interpretation principles, the Court determined that a decedent was “legally intoxicated” and thus fell within a policy exclusion.  Likens v. Hartford Life, No. 11-20653 (July 19, 2012).  Recognizing that some authority  requires a “legal intoxication” exclusion to involve a criminal act, the Court disagreed with those cases, reviewing comparable terms elsewhere in Texas law, as well as a line of admiralty authority.

In GuideOne Specialty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Missionary Church, a coverage case arising from a car accident by church workers on a lunch break, the Court reversed on the duty to defend, disagreeing with the district court’s decision to consider evidence about the state tort litigation as inconsistent with Texas’s “eight corners” rule.  No. 11-10894 (July 17, 2012), op. at 9-12.  Under that rule, the pleadings about the driver’s status and activities could potentially trigger coverage, creating a duty  to defend.  Id. at 13.  The Court declined to apply a “very narrow’ exception that could apply if a coverage issue did not “overlap with the merits of or engage the truth” of the facts of the case.  Id. at 14 (citing GuideOne Elite v. Fielder Road Baptist Church,  197 S.W.3d 305 (Tex. 2006)).  The Court ended by reversing an injunction against state proceedings about the accident, citing general cases about the scope of declaratory judgment actions and noting that the “relitigation exception” to the Anti-Injunction Act did not apply.  Id. at 15-16.     

In the case of Downhole Navigator LLC v. Nautilus Insurance, an insured retained independent counsel after receiving a reservation of rights letter from its insurer, arguing that the insurer’s chosen counsel had a conflict at that point.    686 F.2d 325 (5th Cir. 2012).  Applying Northern County Mutual v. Davalos, 140 S.W.3d 685 (Tex. 2004), the Court found no conflict because “‘the facts to be adjudicated’ in the underlying . . . litigation are not the same ‘facts upon which coverage depends.'”  The Court did not see the recent case of Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee v. American Home Assurance Co., 261 S.W.2d 24 (Tex. 2008), which dealt with the responsibilities of insurers’ staff attorneys who defend a claim for an insured, as changing the basic analysis under Texas law.

The Court adddressed the contractual liability exclusion in a Texas CGL policy in the case of Ewing Construction v. Amerisure Insurance, No. 11-40512 (June 15, 2012).  The Court applied the “plain language of the exclusion,” guided by Gilbert Texas Construction LP v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 327 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. 2010), and concluded that it reached a contractual commitment to complete a construction project.  Op. at 8.  The Court then examined whether an exception applied for liability that would exist even without the contract, and concluded that there was no such liability under Texas’s “con-tort” cases.  Id. at 9 (quoting Southwestern Bell v. DeLanney, 809 S.W.2d 493 (Tex. 1991).  The Court concluded by deferring the issue of the duty to indemnify, and acknowledging a point raised by the dissent about overlap between the “contract” and “your work” exclusions in a typical CGL contract.  Id. at 10.

Mid-Continent Casualty v. Davis presented an insurance coverage dispute about a wrongful death claim by a construction worker.  No. 11-10142 (June 8, 2012).  Coverage turned on whether the worker was an employee or an independent contractor.   Applying the five-factor test from Limestone Products Distribution v. McNamara, 71 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. 2002), the Court affirmed a finding that the worker was an independent contractor.  Key facts were that the worker provided his own tools and supplies, largely controlled his own schedule and tasks, and was provided a 1099 rather than a W-2.  Op. at 13-14.

In Continental Casualty v. North American Capacity Ins. Co., the district court required three primary carriers to split defense costs, while not allowing the excess insurer to recover defense costs from the primaries.  No. 10-20262 (May 30, 2012).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed on the cost-splitting issue, after careful review of the policies’ coverage triggers, scope, and “other insurance” clauses.  Op. at 15-20.  The Court reversed as to the excess carrier, finding it had a right of contractual subrogation, and distinguishing Mid-Continent Insurance v. Liberty Mutual, 236 S.W.3d 765 (Tex. 2007).

The plaintiff in Patrick v. Wal-Mart alleged: “Defendants have engaged in a continuing pattern of bad faith . . . [and] have among other things, unreasonably delayed and/or denied authorization and/or payment of reasonable, neceessary and worker’s comp related medical treatment, as well as permanent indemnity benefits, as ordered by [the state agency].”  No. 11-60217 at 11-12 (May 17, 2012).  The Court found that this allegation “invokes three potentially cognizable theories of liability,” but was “devoid of facts to make it plausible” under Twombly — the pleading “fails to identify the specific time or nature of such wrongs . . . [and] does not identify by date or amount or type of service, any of the alleged bad-faith denials and delays . . . .”  Id.   It found no abuse of discretion in not allowing further amendment, noting “repeated failure[s] to cure deficiencies . . . .”  Id. at 12-13 (quoting United States v. Humana Health Plan, 336 F.3d 375, 387 (5th Cir. 2003)).

In Grissom v. Liberty Mutual, the trial court awarded $212,000 in damages for negligent misrepresentation, based on the difference between the coverage a homeowner actually had at the time of Hurricane Katrina, and the coverage he could have had under a “preferred risk policy.”  No. 11-60260 (April 23, 2012).  The Fifth Circuit reversed on preemption issues unique to flood insurance as well as the viability of the claim itself, stating: “Because Liberty Mutual was not offering insurance advice, was not a fiduciary of Grissom, and did not offer any statement to Grissom to imply the lack of alternative insurance options, Mississippi law would not recognize negligent misrepresentation as a cause of action against Liberty Mutual . . . .”  Op. at 9-10.

LRK Architects v. State Farm presented the question whether a “breach of contract” exclusion should be analyzed under a “but for” or an “incidental relationship” test to determine whether an insurance policy covered a claim for copyright infringement.  No. 11-30121 (April 4, 2012).   After reminding that under Erie its job “is to attempt to predict state law, not to create or modify it,” the Court concluded that Louisiana would use a “but for” test.  Op. at 7-8.  Because the copyright claim “would exist even in the absence” of the parties’ contractual relationship, the exclusion did not apply and the insurer had a duty to cover and defend.  Op. at 9, 10.

In Technical Automation Services Corp. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. the Court addressed, sua sponte, an issue about the jurisdiction of a U.S. magistrate judge after the Supreme Court’s recent opinion limiting bankruptcy court jurisdiction, Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011).  No. 10-20640 (March 5, 2012).  The Court concluded that Stern did not directly overrule the prior Circuit precedent of Puryear v. Ede’s, Ltd., 731 F.2d 1153 (5th Cir. 1984) and held: “[W]e will follow our precedent and continue to hold, until such time as the Supreme Court or our court en banc overrules our precedent, that federal magistrate judges have the constitutional authority to enter final judgments on state-law counterclaims.”  Op. at 12.  On the merits, the Court reversed the lower court’s ruling that an “eight corners” analysis of an insurance coverage issue precluded consideration of a claim of mutual mistake.  Op. at 15.

In National Casualty Co. v. Western World Insurance, the Court addressed basic coverage issues under Texas law about auto insurance.  No. 10-41012 (Feb. 3, 2012).  It held that loading a patient into an ambulance is “use” of a an auto within the meaning of one policy, op. at 6 (citing Mid-Century Ins. v. Lindsey, 997 S.W.2d 153 (Tex. 1999)), but did not fall within a “use” exclusion to another policy, reminding that the standard for construing a coverage provision is different than for an exclusion from coverage. Op. at 11.  The Court also found that a “professional services” and an “other insurance” exclusion did not apply.

The plaintiff in Kocurek v. CUNA Mutual Insurance sued for fraud about the sale of an insurance policy in 2005 on her husband’s life.  (No. 10-51042, Jan. 24, 2012).  The defendant persuaded the district court to dismiss on the pleadings, arguing that she lacked standing because she was not a beneficiary of the 2005 policy, and that the policy had a “one policy only” clause that barred claims under an earlier policy.  The Court disagreed and reversed, characterizing the plaintiff’s claims as relating to the “practice of selling multiple policies to the same individual,” op. at 4-5, and finding the “one policy only” provision potentially ambiguous and thus not a proper basis for dismissal on the pleadings.  Op. at 5.   The Court affirmed dismissal of a DTPA claim, as the plaintiff was not the “consumer” who brought the policy.  Op. at 5-6.

The case of International Fidelity Insurance v. Sweet Little Mexico Corporation (No. 11-40449, Dec. 22, 2011) rejected an argument that the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) had exclusive jurisdiction over a case between an importer and its surety about certain customs liabilities.  Op. at 4-10.  The Court then found no abuse of discretion in proceeding with that case even though there was a first-filed action in the CIT between the importer and U.S. Customs.  Acknowledging some overlap between the basic issue of customs liability and the secondary issue of the surety’s responsibility for that liability, the Court found that on these facts, “the ‘core issues’ in the two forums are not the same.”  Op. at 11.  The Court concluded that, based on the terms of the surety contract, the importer had to reimburse the surety for payments made “regardless of the outcome of the proceedings before the CIT.”  Op. at 13-16.  While the Court’s analysis of the “first-filed” and surety issues turns on the specific facts of the case, the issues addressed and the basic legal principles cited are broadly applicable to those topics.

The case of Gilbane Building Co. v. Admiral Insurance (No. 10-20817, Dec. 12, 2011) involved an insurer’s duty to defend and indemnify an injury claim under Texas law.  The Court first reviewed the basic rules in the Circuit for an “Erie guess” about state law.  Op. at 4-5 & 8 n.2.  The Court found that Texas’s “express negligence” rule was limited to contractual indemnity and did not bear on whether the plaintiff was an “additional insured.”  The Court then applied Texas’s “eight corners” rule and found no duty to defend, reminding that this rule “consider[s] only the facts alleged in the pleadings and . . . not . . . factual assumptions or inferences that were not pleaded.”  Id. at 13.   The Court declined to recognize an exception to the “eight corners” rule for claims involving a plaintiff’s unpleaded contributory negligence.  Id. at 14-17.  The Court concluded by affirming the district court’s summary judgment for the insured on the duty to indemnify, applying a broader standard based on “the facts proven in the underlying suit.”  Id. at 17-18 & n.4 (acknowledging that “this may seem like an unusual result,” but referring to a similar result in D.R. Horton v. Markel Int’l Ins., 300 S.W.3d 740, 744 (Tex. 2009)).

Thompson v. Zurich American Insurance, No. 10-51013 (Dec. 2, 2011) presented a common law “bad faith” action under Texas law about handling of a workers compensation claim (Insurance Code rights being limited after Texas Mutual v. Ruttiger, No. 08-0751 (Tex. Aug. 26, 2011)).  After reminding that Rule 56 asks “whether a rational trier of fact could find for the non-moving party,” op. at 4, the Court reviewed Texas case law on several issues in light of Ruttiger, and found that on the facts presented, none of the following showed bad faith: (1) conflict between expert reports; (2) lack of personal treatment of the plaintiff by the expert; (3) the expert’s record of primarily working for insurance companies; (4) the expert’s analysis of “aggravation”; or (5) the insurer’s conduct after the initial review.  Op. at 5-13.  The footnotes in the opinion summarize the present state of Texas law on several “bad faith” claims-handling issues.