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

CP and Cimarex entered into the Master Service Agreement (MSA). Cimarex hired CP to work at Cimarex’s Oklahoma oil well. CP assigned Trent, an employee of one of its subcontractors, to work at the well. A flash fire occurred at the well. Trent was severely burned Trent sued Cimarex and CP. Cimarex and its insurers settled with Trent for $4.5 million. The Texas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act (TOAIA) voids indemnity agreements that pertain to wells for oil, gas, or water or to mineral mines unless the indemnity agreement is supported by liability insurance. The MSA's mutual indemnity provision required Cimarex and CP to indemnify each other; CP was obligated to obtain a minimum of $1 million in commercial general liability insurance and $2 million in excess liability insurance, Cimarex was required to obtain $1 million in general liability insurance and $25 million in excess liability insurance. CP obtained more coverage than the minimum required by the MSA, but its policy limited indemnity coverage. Cimarex sought indemnity from CP, which paid Cimarex $3 million, but refused to indemnify Cimarex for the remaining $1.5 million.The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for CP. TOAIA contemplates that mutual indemnity obligations will be enforceable only up to the limits of insurance each party has agreed to provide in equal amounts to the other party as indemnitee. CP did not breach the MSA because CP was only required to indemnify Cimarex up to $3 million. View "Cimarex Energy Co. v. CP Well Testing L.L.C." on Justia Law

Landmark issued a “deductible buyback” insurance policy, covering SCD properties. SCD’s high-deductible primary insurance policy was issued by Lexington. The Landmark policy covers damage also covered by Lexington and states: “Perils Covered: Windstorm or Hail associated with a Named Storm,” following the Lexington policy's Named Storm definition: “a storm that has been declared by the National Weather Service to be a Hurricane, Typhoon, Tropical Cyclone, Tropical Storm, or Tropical Depression.” In August 2017, Hurricane Harvey, a “Named Storm,” under the Lexington and Landmark policies, caused tremendous flooding damage to one of SCD’s insured properties. There was no reported wind damage to the property nor evidence that the property suffered damage from hail. The Lexington policy paid out millions of dollars for loss in excess of the “Windstorm deductible” in that policy,Landmark sought a declaration that SCD’s policy did not apply to the loss sustained. The Fifth Circuit reversed a judgment in favor of SCD and rendered judgment for Landmark. If SCD’s interpretation of the policy were correct, then the Landmark policy simply could have stated that all damage from a Named Storm is covered (regardless of the peril that caused the damage). The policy does not state that but frames its coverage as applying to specific “[c]overed perils.” View "Landmark American Insurance Co. v. SCD Memorial Place II, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Atlantic, concluding that the action is precluded on res judicata grounds. The court clarified some doctrinal confusion in its law about Louisiana principles of res judicata that one of its sister circuits has observed. The court concluded that this action arises out of the same nucleus of facts as plaintiff's initial suit, the issue of Atlantic's alleged bad faith misrepresentation of underinsured motorist coverage could have been raised in that initial suit, and plaintiff did not specifically reserve the right to bring this second suit as part of his settlement agreement with Atlantic. While plaintiff is correct that Louisiana's bad faith statutes impose duties on Atlantic that are separate and distinct from its duties under the insurance contract, this action remains barred by res judicata. Finally, this case does not present an exceptional circumstance exception to res judicata. View "Dotson v. Atlantic Specialty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

BP retained the Responders (O’Brien’s and NRC) for nearly $2 billion to assist with the cleanup of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Thousands of the Responders' workers filed personal injury lawsuits against BP, which were consolidated and organized into “pleading bundles.” The B3 bundle included “all claims for personal injury and/or medical monitoring for exposure or other injury occurring after the explosion and fire of April 20, 2010.” In 2012, BP entered the “Medical Settlement” on the B3 claims with a defined settlement class. The opt-out deadline closed in October 2012. The Medical Settlement created a new type of claim for latent injuries, BackEnd Litigation Option (BELO) claims. After the settlement, plaintiffs could bring opt-out B3 claims if they did not participate in the settlement, and BELO claims if they were class members who alleged latent injuries and followed the approved process. Responders were aware of the settlement before the district court approved it but neither Responder had control over the negotiations, nor did either approve the settlement.In 2017, BP sought indemnification for 2,000 BELO claims by employees of the Responders. The Fifth Circuit held that BP was an additional insured up to the minimum amount required by its contract with O’Brien’s; the insurance policies maintained by O’Brien’s cannot be combined to satisfy the minimum amount. O’Brien’s is not required to indemnify BP because BP materially breached its indemnification provision with respect to the BELO claims. View "O'Brien's Response Management, L.L.C. v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc." on Justia Law

Braylon Jordan swallowed small magnets when he was two years old. The magnets shredded his internal organs and necessitated surgery to remove most of his intestines, leaving him severely disabled. At issue in this appeal is whether there is insurance coverage for M&O's defense and for a partial settlement of the Jordans' claims.The Fifth Circuit concluded that, because no claim arising from Braylon Jordan's injuries was timely made against M&O during Evanston's policy period, Evanston is not obligated to provide M&O costs of its defense or coverage for the partial settlement between the Jordans and its then-CEO Craig Zucker. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment that Evanston was not obligated to indemnify Zucker. However, the court reversed the district court's denial of Evanston's motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment in Evanston's favor. View "Jordan v. Evanston Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In 2012, the Archdiocese purchased a roof membrane system from Siplast, for installation at a Bronx high school. Siplast guaranteed that the system would “remain in a watertight condition for a period of 20 years.” In 2016, school officials observed water damage in the ceiling tiles after a rainstorm and notified the installing contractor and Siplast. A designated Siplast contractor unsuccessfully attempted to repair the damage and prevent leaks. The Archdiocese ultimately obtained an estimate for remediation and replacement of approximately $5,000,000.The ensuing lawsuit alleged “Breach of the Guarantee” Siplast submitted a claim to its insurer, EMCC, asserting coverage under commercial general liability policies that covered “property damage” caused by an “occurrence,” defined as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” The policies were subject to exclusions for “Your Product/Your Work” and “Contractual Liability.” The district court granted EMCC summary judgment, finding that while the complaint did allege property damage that was caused by an “occurrence,” the alleged damage fit within the Your Product/Your Work Exclusion. The Fifth Circuit reversed, finding that EMCC had a duty to defend. The underlying complaint contains allegations of damage to property other than Siplast’s roof membrane as part of the claim against Siplast; the exclusion does not apply. View "Siplast, Inc. v. Employers Mutual Casualty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

TBB filed suit seeking to recoup losses stemming from the limitations on the operations of nonessential businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic through its commercial property insurance policy which covers business interruption losses caused by "direct physical loss of or damage to property."The Fifth Circuit concluded that the suspension of dine-in services during the COVID-19 pandemic is not a direct physical loss of or damage to property. Applying Texas law, the court concluded that the district court correctly determined that TBB's losses are not covered by either the business income and extra expense coverage (BI/EE) or the restaurant extension endorsement (REE) provision. Without coverage, the court need not address whether any policy exclusions also apply. In regard to TBB's extra-contractual claims, the court concluded that they were properly dismissed as abandoned. Finally, the court found no err in the district court's decision to deny TBB leave to amend. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of the insurer. View "Terry Black's Barbecue, LLC v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

After a RealPage, Inc. employee clicked a fake link in a seemingly innocuous email and provided login information for RealPage's account with Stripe, Inc., a third party payment processor, phishers stole the login credentials and used them to divert millions of dollars in rent payments from tenants intended for RealPage's property manager clients. RealPage and Stripe recovered some of the stolen funds but lost about $6 million. RealPage reimbursed its clients and filed claims under its commercial crime insurance policies for the stolen funds, but its primary insurer denied coverage.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer, concluding that the funds RealPage lost were not covered losses because RealPage never "held" them. Therefore, the insurer was within its rights to deny coverage of the stolen funds intended for RealPage's property manager clients. Furthermore, because the insurer's coverage was not exhausted, Beazley Insurance was also within its rights to deny coverage under RealPage's excess policy. Finally, because RealPage is not entitled to coverage under the policies at issue, its arguments that the insurer breached Chapter 541 and 542 of the Texas Insurance Code by not timely paying its claims are similarly without merit. View "Realpage, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit concluded that Arch, the issuer of a commercial general liability policy, has a duty to defend a highway construction project's general contractor. In this case, the developer's claims against the project's general contractor implicate defective construction of the project's drainage systems; Archer Western constructed those drainage systems; and Archer Western's commercial general liability insurer (Arch) owes a duty to defend the general contractor (CTHC) in its underlying litigation with the developer. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment to the contrary. View "Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Arch Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The insured's intended beneficiaries filed suit for breach of contract and violations of the Texas Insurance Code and Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act in Texas court after the insurer denied coverage. After removal to federal court, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer.The Fifth Circuit reversed, concluding that the parties' arguments and the record presented to the district court at summary judgment reveal a genuine dispute as to whether the insured's application was amended. In this case, plaintiffs point to more than enough evidence in the record to raise a genuine dispute of fact as to whether there was a meeting of the minds to amend the application. Furthermore, because the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiffs' statutory, extracontractual claims was based on the conclusion that the insurer had legitimately denied plaintiffs' claim for benefits, the grant of summary judgment on the statutory, extra-contractual claims must also be reversed. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Pham v. TransAmerica Premier Life Insurance Co." on Justia Law