Verdict for Energy Company Against Insurer Overturned

The Insurance and Reinsurance Report: Verdict for Energy Company Against Insurer OverturnedThe Insurance and Reinsurance ReportTimely Insurance and Reinsurance Law and News HomeArchivesSubscribe Twitter Updatesfollow me on Twitter « Reinsurer Must Prove Prejudice to Avoid Coverage Based on Late Notice |Main

June 23, 2011Verdict for Energy Company Against Insurer OverturnedMid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Eland Energy Inc. (N.D. Tex. June 16, 2011)

Mid-Continent Casualty Co. issued two insurance policies to several energy companies: a primary policy with a $1 million occurrence limit and $2 million aggregate, and an umbrella policy with a $5 million aggregate.  After Hurricane Katrina, crude oil leaked from the energy companies’ storage tanks at an oil and gas facility in Louisiana.  More oil that was put in a containment boom during cleanup leaked when Hurricane Rita hit.  Following the leaks, lawsuits were filed against the companies by the owners of neighboring properties and commercial fisherman.

The insurer initially agreed to defend the companies, but as the cleanup progressed, the insurer issued them a check for $1 million and $5 million and cut off payment for litigation costs, saying the limits of the policies were exhausted by the cleanup costs.  The insurer also denied defendants’ claim for cleanup costs resulting from Hurricane Rita, contending there was no new release of crude oil.

In a subsequent declaratory judgment action, defendants claimed that their insurer improperly cut them checks for $6 million, even though the cleanup costs had only reached $5.7 million, so the insurer could invoke a contractual right to stop paying their litigation costs.  The insurer alleged, however, that it was legally obligated to pay the combined policy limits when the defendants’ full liability for the cleanup costs became clear.

In October 2009, the court ruled that the insurer did not have to indemnify defendants for a  $2 million settlement in one of the underlying cases because the insurer had the right to waive certain elements of the insurance contract.  On February 22, 2010, the court rejected the defendants arguments, and reaffirmed its decision

The court, however, had allowed a claim to proceed alleging that plaintiff harmed one of the companies by directly settling early with a third-party claimant that sustained property damage.  Plaintiff offered the claimant nearly $55,000 to settle the claims but the energy company asked plaintiff to withdraw the offer.  After the offer was withdrawn, the claimant commenced a class action against the energy company that settled for $2 million.  A jury found that plaintiff put the energy company in a worse position by offering the settlement.

The company maintained that, but for Mid-Continent’s misconduct, it would have had the opportunity to discuss the offer with the claimant, persuaded him not to join the class, not to become the class representative, and not to discuss his offer with his neighbors or other class members. The company suggested that, had it been given that opportunity, it would have been able to settle class action suit for less than $2 million. The court held that the company did not adduce any evidence, however, from which a reasonable jury could have found that, given the opportunity and the information it needed, and without any interference from Mid-Continent, the company would have been successful in its attempts to discuss the offer with claimant or to persuade the claimant not to join the class, not to become the class representative, or not to discuss his offer with others. In other words, although the company argued that it would have tried to accomplish these goals, it offered no evidence from which a reasonable jury could have found it more likely than not that it would have succeeded.  Moreover, the company’s motivation to settle the class action was not solely based on Mid-Continent’s investigation of the damage to the claimant’s property and the offer to that claimant.  One reason the company settled the class action was out of concern about jury sympathy for hurricane victims.

Accordingly, on June 16, 2011, the court overturned the jury’s verdict against Mid-Continent. 

For a copy of the decision click here

Toni Frain and Joseph Oliva

Posted at 04:46 PM in Emerging Issues | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a01156f782e71970c01538f631e97970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Verdict for Energy Company Against Insurer Overturned:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Verify your Comment Previewing your CommentPosted by:  | 

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type: Your comment has been posted. Post another comment The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Post a comment Comment below or sign in with TypePad Facebook Twitter and more... You are currently signed in as (nobody). Sign Out (URLs automatically linked.)

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Name is required to post a comment

Please enter a valid email address

Invalid URL

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz ArchivesJune 2011May 2011April 2011March 2011February 2011January 2011December 2010November 2010October 2010September 2010CategoriesArbitrationBad Faith and Extra-Contractual LiabilityBooksBusiness InterruptionClass ActionsDirectors and OfficersDisclaimers and Reservations of RightsEmerging IssuesEnvironmentalEnvironmental Coverage QuarterlyErrors and OmissionsExcess InsuranceFirst Party PropertyGoldberg Segalla CaseWatch InsuranceIndustry NewsLegislative UpdateLife, Health, Disability & ERISAOccurrancePatent and TrademarkPolicy ConditionsPolicy ConstructionPolicy FormationProfessional Liability MonthlyReinsuranceReinsurance ReviewAbout document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + (document.location.protocol == "https:" ? "https://sb" : "http://b") + ".scorecardresearch.com/beacon.js'%3E%3C/script%3E"));COMSCORE.beacon({ c1: 2, c2: "6035669", c3: "", c4: "http://insurancecoverage.typepad.com/insurance_and_reinsurance/2011/06/verdict-for-energy-company-against-insurer-overturned.html", c5: "", c6: "", c15: ""});

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.