Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Christa Taylor purchased an automobile insurance policy from Root Insurance Company. After her vehicle was damaged in a hailstorm, Root determined it to be a total loss and paid Taylor the vehicle's actual cash value of $22,750. However, Root did not include an amount representing the sales tax in this payment. Taylor argued that the policy required Root to pay the applicable sales tax in addition to the actual cash value and filed a putative class action for breach of contract and violation of the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act (TPPCA).The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas reviewed the case. Root moved to dismiss Taylor's claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The magistrate judge recommended granting Root's motion and denying Taylor's request for leave to amend her complaint. The district court conducted a de novo review, agreed with the magistrate judge, and dismissed the suit. Taylor then appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the insurance policy's language required Root to pay only the "applicable sales tax," and since a total-loss settlement is not considered a sale under Texas law, no sales tax was applicable. The court also noted that actual cash value does not include taxes and fees payable to purchase a replacement vehicle under Texas law. Consequently, Root did not breach the policy, nor did it violate the TPPCA. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Taylor's claims. View "Taylor v. Root Insurance" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Wapiti Energy, L.L.C. ("Wapiti"), the owner of a 155-foot tank barge, the SMI 315, which broke free of its moorings and ran aground in marshland owned by a third party during Hurricane Ida. The vessel was insured under a marine package policy issued by Clear Spring Property and Casualty Company ("Clear Spring"). The policy provided coverage for wreck removal expenses that are compulsory by law. After the incident, Wapiti incurred expenses in removing the stranded vessel from the marshland and sought reimbursement from Clear Spring. Clear Spring, however, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the removal of the SMI 315 was not compulsory by law, and thus, it was not obligated to reimburse the expenses.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled in favor of Clear Spring, concluding that removal of the SMI 315 was not compulsory by law and dismissing Wapiti’s claims. Wapiti appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the lower court's decision. The court concluded that the removal of the SMI 315 was compelled by the Louisiana possessory action, which made removal compulsory by law. The court reasoned that at the time of the incident, a reasonable owner would know that the barge stranded on a third party's property would expose them to a high probability of having to comply with an injunction mandating the removal of the vessel. Therefore, Wapiti's proactive removal of the vessel from the third party's marshland was warranted, and Clear Spring was obligated to reimburse the expenses. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Wapiti Energy v. Clear Spring Property and Casualty Co." on Justia Law

Ian Simpson purchased a life insurance policy from Transamerica Life Insurance Company and named his then-fiancée, Holly Moore, as the primary beneficiary and his father, Jeffrey Simpson, as the contingent beneficiary. After Ian and Holly married and subsequently divorced, Ian died without changing the policy beneficiaries. The divorce decree stipulated that Holly was divested of all rights to Ian's life insurance policies. After Ian's death, both Holly and Jeffrey claimed the policy proceeds, leading Transamerica to file an interpleader action in federal court.The district court ruled in favor of Holly, holding that Texas Family Code § 9.301, which generally strips an ex-spouse of beneficiary interests in insurance policies after a divorce, only applies if the insured and the beneficiary were married when the insurance policy was purchased. The court reasoned that since the policy was purchased before Ian and Holly's marriage, Holly was not considered "the insured's spouse" at the time of the policy's inception, and therefore, the divorce decree did not divest her of the insurance proceeds.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment. The appellate court interpreted § 9.301 to focus on the marital relationship at the time of the divorce decree's rendition, regardless of when the insurance policy was purchased. The court held that since Holly was Ian's spouse at the time of the divorce decree, § 9.301 divested her of her beneficiary interest in the policy. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of Jeffrey Simpson, the contingent beneficiary. View "Simpson v. Moore" on Justia Law

Baylor Scott & White Holdings (BSW), the largest nonprofit health system in Texas, purchased a specialized commercial property insurance policy from Factory Mutual Insurance Co. (FM) to cover its facilities. The policy covered two types of claims—“Property Damage” and “Time Element” claims, which are synonymous with “business interruption” loss. BSW submitted a claim under the policy for its business interruption losses as a result of COVID-19, totaling over $192 million. FM denied the claim, stating that the only coverage under the policy for losses arising from COVID-19 came from the Communicable Disease Response Extension and the Interruption by Communicable Disease Extension, which had already been exhausted.FM moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The district court granted FM’s motion to dismiss, finding that BSW had not plausibly alleged “physical loss or damage” under the policy, and that the Contamination Exclusion and Loss of Use Exclusion barred BSW’s recovery under the policy. BSW appealed the district court’s dismissal order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court. The court held that, in the context of COVID-19 commercial-insurance coverage disputes, COVID-19 does not physically harm property. The court found that the alleged uniqueness of the policy’s language did not change this determination. The court also rejected BSW's contention that its complaint was wrongly dismissed because it included specific factual allegations of demonstratable, measurable, and tangible alteration of property caused by COVID-19. The court concluded that, as a matter of law, COVID-19 does not affect property in a “physical” way. View "Baylor Scott & White v. Factory Mutual" on Justia Law

The case involves First Baptist Church of Iowa, Louisiana (FB Church) and Church Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. (CM Insurance). FB Church sued CM Insurance for failing to pay benefits for property damage caused by Hurricane Laura under an insurance policy. The property included three buildings: the main church, a parsonage, and a vacant building. After the hurricane, FB Church reported the loss to CM Insurance, which then hired a third-party administrator to adjust the loss. The administrator estimated the total loss at $630,000 before deductibles. However, FB Church was dissatisfied with how its claim was being handled and hired a public adjuster, who prepared an estimate of over $1 million in damages. FB Church then sued CM Insurance, alleging claims for additional covered losses and for statutory penalties, costs, and attorney’s fees under Louisiana Revised Statutes § 22:1892.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana found in favor of FB Church, awarding it damages, statutory penalties, attorney’s fees, and costs. CM Insurance appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court agreed with the district court that CM Insurance failed to adjust the claim and that FB Church was entitled to statutory penalties. However, the court found that the district court erred in calculating damages based on prices in January 2023 instead of at the time of loss, and in awarding any damages for slab repair and damages in excess of $4,500 for the sanctuary’s electrical repair. The case was remanded for recalculation of damages. View "First Baptist Church of Iowa, Louisiana v. Church Mutual Insurance, S.I." on Justia Law

The case involves SKAV, L.L.C., the owner of a Best Western hotel in Abbeville, Louisiana, and Independent Specialty Insurance Company. The hotel was damaged by Hurricane Laura in August 2020, and SKAV filed a claim on a surplus lines insurance policy it had purchased from Independent Specialty. The policy contained an arbitration clause requiring all disputes to be settled by arbitration. However, SKAV sued Independent Specialty in the Western District of Louisiana, alleging that the insurance company had failed to adequately cover the hotel's hurricane damage under the policy's terms. Independent Specialty moved to compel arbitration, but the district court denied the motion, citing a prior decision that concluded that § 22:868 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes voids an arbitration provision in a contract for surplus lines insurance.The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The main dispute was the effect of § 22:868 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes on the insurance policy's arbitration clause. The statute bars insurance policies from depriving Louisiana courts of jurisdiction and permits, in limited circumstances, forum- and venue-selection provisions. The court noted that there were conflicting decisions on this issue from district courts in Louisiana and New York.The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. The court concluded that the arbitration clause in the surplus lines insurance policy was void under § 22:868. The court reasoned that the Louisiana Legislature's 2020 amendments to the statute did not reverse the state's longstanding anti-arbitration policy. The court also rejected Independent Specialty's argument that the issue of the arbitration clause's validity must itself go to arbitration, stating that when a statute prevents the valid formation of an arbitration agreement, the court cannot compel arbitration, even on threshold questions of arbitrability. View "S. K. A. V. v. Independent Specialty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between Sentry Insurance and James J. Morgan, who operates a business. Morgan's properties, insured by Sentry, suffered wind and hail damage from a storm. Sentry estimated the damages at $190,768.33 and paid Morgan $61,026.93 after deductions. However, Morgan estimated his loss at $540,426.05 and demanded Sentry pay an additional $349,657.22. When the parties couldn't agree on the loss amount, they turned to an appraisal process outlined in their insurance policy. Both parties appointed an appraiser, but the appraisers couldn't agree on an umpire. Consequently, Sentry filed a petition for the district court to appoint an umpire.The district court dismissed Sentry's petition, ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the petition didn't meet the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court reasoned that it couldn't assess the value of the parties' contractual right to have an umpire examine the difference between two appraisers' estimates and determine the loss amount because the appraisers hadn't yet made their estimates.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court disagreed with the district court's narrow interpretation of the right to be protected. It held that in an action seeking the appointment of an umpire for appraisal, the right to be protected is the right to continue with the appraisal process, and the value of this right is the disputed amount set to be resolved through appraisal. The court found that Sentry's petition established an amount in controversy over $75,000, as Morgan had demanded an additional $349,657.22 under the policy. The case was remanded to the district court to consider Morgan's additional jurisdictional arguments. View "Sentry Insurance v. Morgan" on Justia Law

A car accident occurred during Race Wars 2, an amateur drag racing event organized by Flyin’ Diesel Performance & Offroad, L.L.C. The accident resulted in injuries and deaths among spectators. The injured parties and representatives of the deceased sued Flyin’ Diesel, who turned to their insurer, Kinsale Insurance Company, for legal defense. The dispute centered on whether Kinsale owed a duty to defend Flyin’ Diesel under their commercial general liability insurance policy.The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The district court found the insurance policy ambiguous and ruled that Kinsale owed Flyin’ Diesel a duty to defend. Flyin’ Diesel was granted partial summary judgment, and Kinsale's motion was denied. Kinsale appealed this decision.The case was then reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appellate court disagreed with the district court's finding of ambiguity in the insurance policy. The court determined that the policy unambiguously excluded the claims made by the injured parties from coverage. Therefore, the court concluded that Kinsale was not obligated to defend Flyin’ Diesel in the lawsuit. The court reversed the district court's partial summary judgment for Flyin’ Diesel and remanded the case with instructions to grant summary judgment to Kinsale. View "Kinsale Ins v. Flyin' Diesel Performance" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiffs, Carl and Mary Ellen Schnell, filed an insurance claim with their home insurer, State Farm Lloyds, after a hailstorm damaged their home's roof. State Farm accepted coverage for some claims but denied others, including the claim that the City of Fort Worth required the Schnells to replace their entire roof, rather than just the damaged tiles. The Schnells sued, and the district court ruled in favor of State Farm. The Schnells appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that there were genuine issues of material fact that prevented the case from being resolved through summary judgment. The court found conflicting evidence regarding whether a building code administrator had flatly denied the Schnells' request for spot repairs or had conditioned his decision on the Schnells confirming that the old and new tiles on their roof did not interlock. The court also found a genuine dispute of fact about whether the Schnells' roof tiles were damaged by a covered risk like wind or hail, which would have triggered their insurance coverage.Thus, the court vacated the district court's summary judgment in favor of State Farm on the Schnells' breach of contract and Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act claims. The court affirmed the remainder of the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Schnell v. State Farm Lloyds" on Justia Law

Gold Coast Commodities, Inc., a company that converts used cooking oil and vegetable by-products into animal feed ingredients, was insured under a policy by Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America. The policy included a pollution exclusion clause. During the policy period, the City of Brandon and the City of Jackson filed suits against Gold Coast, alleging that the company dumped corrosive, high-temperature wastewater into their respective sewer systems, causing damage. Travelers denied coverage for these claims, citing the policy's pollution exclusion clause. Gold Coast appealed this decision, arguing that Travelers had a duty to defend them in these lawsuits and reimburse them for their defense costs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the claims against Gold Coast were clearly and unambiguously excluded from coverage based on the policy's pollution exclusion. The court noted that the pollution exclusion clause was not ambiguous in this context, as there was no reasonable interpretation of the wastewater's form or qualities that would conclude that it was not an irritant or contaminant, as defined in the policy.The court concluded that because the claims fell outside the policy's coverage, Travelers had no duty to defend or indemnify Gold Coast and its principals in relation to the lawsuits brought against them by the City of Brandon and the City of Jackson. Therefore, the court affirmed the decision of the district court, which had denied Gold Coast's motions for partial judgment on the pleadings and had granted Travelers' motion for partial summary judgment. View "Gold Coast Commodities, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America" on Justia Law