Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, borrowers who failed to purchase hazard insurance on their mortgaged properties, as required by the terms of their loan agreements, filed suit alleging that they were fraudulently overbilled. Plaintiffs' loan servicer, GMAC, bought lender-placed insurance (LPI) from Balboa at rates that were approve by regulators. GMAC then sought reimbursement from plaintiffs at the same rates. Plaintiffs alleged that the rates they were charged did not reflect secret "rebates" and "kickbacks" that GMAC received from Balboa through Balboa's affiliate, Newport. The court held that a claim challenging a regulator-approved rate is subject to the filed rate doctrine whether or not the rate is passed through an intermediary. The claim is therefore barred if it would undermine the regulator’s rate-setting authority or operate to give the suing ratepayer a preferential rate. In this case, plaintiffs' claims are barred under the filed rate doctrine and the court reversed and remanded for dismissal of the case. View "Rothstein v. Balboa Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Nova is the trustee and fiduciary of the Charter Oak Benefit Plan. A participating employer took out insurance policies on its employee’s (Spencer) life, totaling $30 million, and placed them into the Plan. Spencer named Universitas as the sole, irrevocable beneficiary. After Spencer’s death, the insurer paid $30 million to the Plan. Nova denied Universitas’s claim for the proceeds. In binding arbitration, an arbitrator held Nova liable for $26,558,308. Nova declined to pay, filing suit to vacate the arbitration award. The court confirmed the award. Nova moved for reconsideration and for a stay of post‐judgment discovery, then moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. All were rejected. The district court granted Nova’s application to reinstate the motion to dismiss, but warned of potential penalties. Nova’s then‐counsel withdrew the motion; new counsel filed an amended motion, arguing complete diversity was lacking because Charter Oak was a citizen of New York, as was Universitas. Charter Oak was not a party; Nova argued that it was “a real and substantial party to the controversy.” The district court dismissed the motion. Nova refused to pay or to cooperate in discovery of its assets. The Second Circuit affirmed, awarding costs. The district court then sanctioned Nova by requiring it to deposit $30,181,880, the amount of the outstanding judgment, with the court. The Second Circuit vacated, holding that the court may not collect damages owed to a party by imposition of a sanction. View "Universitas Educ. LLC v. Nova Group Inc." on Justia Law

Reverend Flesher participated in benefits plans administered by the Ministers and Missionaries Benefit Board (MMBB), a New York not‐for‐profit corporation. Flesher entered into the plans while married to Snow. Snow, also a reverend and MMBB policyholder, was listed as the primary beneficiary on both of Flesher’s plans. Snow’s father was the contingent beneficiary. When Flesher and Snow divorced in 2008 they signed a Marital Settlement Agreement; each agreed to relinquish rights to inherit from the other and was allowed to change the beneficiaries on their respective MMBB plans. Flesher, then domiciled in Colorado, died in 2011 without changing his beneficiaries. MMBB , unable to determine how to distribute the funds, and filed an interpleader suit. The district court discharged MMBB from liability, applied New York law, and held that Flesher’s estate was entitled to the funds. The Second Circuit certified to the New York Court of Appeals the question: whether a governing‐law provision that states that the contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of New York, in a contract not consummated pursuant to New York General Obligations Law 5‐1401, requires the application of New York Estates, Powers & Trusts Law 3‐5.1(b)(2), which may, in turn, require application of the law of another state. View "Ministers & Missionaries Benefit Bd. v. Snow" on Justia Law

This case arose from injuries suffered by several students during scholastic athletic activities. The students were insured by Central States, an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., employee welfare benefit plan that provides health insurance to participating Teamsters and their dependents. The students were also directly insured by separate accident policies written by Gerber. Central States subsequently filed suit against Gerber, alleging various claims for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief pursuant to federal common law and ERISA section 502(a)(3). The court held that although Central States might well be left without an appropriate remedy as a result of this decision, and that in the future its beneficiaries may be put in the unfortunate position of having to sue their insurance companies to receive benefits to which they are indisputably entitled, the claims raised by Central States are legal, not equitable, and therefore may not be brought under section 502(a)(3). Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of Gerber's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). View "Cent. States, Se. & Sw Areas Health & Welfare Fund v. Gerber Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Petitioners, family members of victims of state sponsored terrorism, sought enforcement of their 2010 judgment obtained against North Korea by attaching the blocked assets of that state under section 201 of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA), 28 U.S.C. 1610 note, and sections 1610(f)(1) and 1610(g) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1610(f)(1) and 1610(g). Petitioners sought to satisfy their judgments from electronic fund transfers (EFTs) blocked in United States banks pursuant to the sanctions regimes imposed upon North Korea by the United States government. The court concluded that petitions may not attach the EFTs at issue under section 201(a) of the TRIA because their judgment was not issued against a terrorist party. In regard to claims under section 1610(g)(1) of the FSIA , the court remanded in order for the parties to conduct discovery aimed at resolving the factual issues surrounding whether the entities that transmitted the EFTs to respondents banks were agencies or instrumentalities of North Korea. In regards to claims under section 1610(f)(1) of the FSIA, the court held that petitioners' claim for relief pursuant to that statutory provision is without merit for the simple reason that a party's right to proceed under that section was eliminated by a valid executive order that no subsequent presidential administration has rescinded. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Calderon-Cardona v. BNY Mellon et al." on Justia Law

Acumen, the underwriter, filed suit against General Security, the reinsurer, for breach of a reinsurance underwriting agreement. The district court granted partial summary judgment for General Security, certified the judgment under Rule 54(b), and closed the case. The court dismissed Acumen's appeal, holding that the district court's entry of the Rule 54(b) order and judgment was erroneous because the district court did not address separate claims for relief. In the absence of a final judgment on a claim or an otherwise reviewable order, the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. View "Acumen Re Mgmt. Corp. v. General Security Nat. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Continental issued claims-made liability policies to the architectural firm responsible for designing and overseeing the construction of a building for the DASNY. In this declaratory judgment action, the insurer appealed from the district court's ruling on summary judgment that the two design flaws in the same structure were not "related." The court concluded that the 2002 Demand Letter could not be fairly read to concern the Ice Control Issue; and, focuses entirely on the Steel Girt Tolerance Issue, it could not be fairly read as an omnibus claim concerning all architectural defects in the Baruch College building; the court agreed with the district court that the Steel Girt Tolerance Issue and the Ice Control Issue arose from two unrelated wrongful acts; and, therefore, the court affirmed the district court's declaration that the two issues were unrelated. However, the court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by awarding prejudgment interest from the date of the settlement agreement itself. Accordingly, the court vacated the award and remanded for further proceedings. View "Dormitory Authority v. Continental Casualty Co." on Justia Law

This declaratory judgment action under New York law involves Hartford's issuance to Euchner of comprehensive general liability insurance with an endorsement covering the company's employee benefits program. Hartford denied coverage and refused a defense as to a suit in which plaintiff alleged that she was sexually harassed and that she was coerced into accepting a changed status that Euchner improperly classified as an independent sales position. Euchner appealed from the district court's grant of Hartford's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the underlying suit alleged only intentional wrong. The court concluded that a reasonable possibility existed that some claims in the former employee's (amended) complaint might implicate the coverage extended by endorsement, and that Hartford therefore owed a duty to defend. The court did not reach the issue of indemnity. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded in part. The court affirmed the dismissal of the claim brought under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 349. View "Euchner-USA, Inc. v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against APIC, a nondomiciliary risk retention group, under New York's direct action statute, N.Y. Ins. Law 3420, to recover an unsatisfied state court judgment that had been entered against APIC's insured. The insured was a chiropractor that plaintiff had sought treatment from and who had pled guilty to third-degree assault for his inappropriate touching of plaintiff. At issue was whether the Liability Risk Retention Act of 1986, 15 U.S.C. 3901 et seq., preempted the application of section 3420(a)(2) to APIC, which was domiciled in Arizona, but issued insurance policies in New York. The court held that any construction of New York law that would impose section 3420's direct action requirements on foreign risk retention groups was preempted by section 3902(a)(1) of the LRRA. View "Wadsworth v. Allied Professionals Ins." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former NBA referees, filed suit alleging breach of contract and/or seeking reformation with respect to each supplemental insurance policy that plaintiff had. Plaintiffs had relied on the insurance agent's representations that when plaintiffs where injured and unable to work as NBA referees, they would receive disability payments until the age of sixty-five. The court concluded that plaintiffs' failure to read the policy did not defeat their reasonable expectations. Pennsylvania law determined plaintiffs' right to reformation; absolved the insured from not reading the policy at delivery; and allowed the contract to be interpreted (or recast) from the date the carriers acted in a manner inconsistent with the insured's reasonable expectations of coverage. The policies that underlay Pennsylvania's substantive contract law of the reasonable expectations doctrine directly contradict those that drive Connecticut's view of when a claim for non-conforming coverage accrues. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's decision dismissing plaintiffs' breach of contract claims and remanded for further proceedings. View "Nunn v. Massachusetts Casualty Ins." on Justia Law