Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
MVT Services, LLC v. Great West Casualty Company
MVT Services, LLC, purchased a workers’ compensation policy and liability policy from Great West Casualty Co. for coverage from Jan. 1, 2013, through Jan. 1, 2014. The policy required Great West to defend MVT against any suit seeking the payable benefits of the policy and limited indemnity for bodily injury by accident to $1 million per accident.
In January 2013, MVT entered into a staff leasing agreement with OEP Holdings, LLC. Under the agreement, MVT transferred its Texas-based employees, including Lawrence Parada, to OEP. MVT then leased OEP’s employees, including Parada. It also purchased a non-subscriber insurance policy from a different firm.
On Aug. 13, 2013, MVT contacted Great West to terminate its Texas coverage. Great West processed the termination, and on Aug. 15, 2013, filed the notice of termination with the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation. Ordinarily, termination becomes effective 30 days after TDI receives notice. However, because the policy termination date fell on a Saturday, Sept. 14, 2013, the termination date extended to Sept. 16, 2013.
The day before coverage termination, on Sept. 15, 2013, MVT’s semi-tractor trailer crashed, killing Parada. Parada’s widow filed a beneficiary claim for death benefits with TDI. She also filed suit against MVT in a Texas state district court, claiming negligence and gross negligence.
On Oct. 28, 2013, MVT tendered defense of the Parada lawsuit to Great West under its policy. The next day, Great West advised MVT to seek coverage for the Parada lawsuit with the other insurance carrier. On Dec. 10, 2013, Great West formally refused to defend MVT’s claim, believing the underlying claim arose from an incident outside the coverage period under its policy. The other carrier agreed to defend MVT through its coverage.
On April 17, 2015, the Parada lawsuit plaintiffs informed MVT that damages could exceed $25 million and demanded $12.5 million to settle the lawsuit. Later that month, MVT retained a law firm to sue Great West for denial of coverage.
On May 22, 2015, Great West reversed the coverage denial and agreed to participate in MVT’s defense in the Parada lawsuit. The lawsuit eventually settled for $3.5 million, which included the other insurer’s policy limit of $1 million, Great West’s policy limit of $1 million, an unrelated excess insurer’s contribution of $1 million and $500,000 from MVT. Great West also paid Texas workers’ compensation death benefits as part of the settlement.
MVT then sued Great West for breach of contract and violation of the Texas Insurance Code. The district court granted summary judgment to MVT on the breach of contract claim, but the court found genuine factual disputes over whether the breach caused damages to MVT.
The district court also granted summary judgment to MVT on its claim that Great West violated the Prompt Payment of Claims Act under the Texas Insurance Code, but the claim proceeded to trial to determine damages.
The district court found that MVT incurred damages in the form of a $250,000 retention paid under the other insurance policy, the $250,000 that MVT contributed to the Parada lawsuit settlement and $41,476.84 in attorney fees for this case to MVT.
Great West appealed the monetary award to MVT. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Great West failed to show the district court committed legal error or clearly erred in its fact findings.
The 10th Circuit affirmed.
Nautilus Insurance Company v. Fantasia Hookah Lounge and JJG Properties, LLC
This appeal involves a dispute about the scope of coverage under a commercial insurance policy that Nautilus Insurance Co. issued to Fantasia Hookah Lounge.
Nautilus sought a declaratory judgment from the district court that the policy didn’t cover the liability of Fantasia, its owner or Fantasia’s landlord for gunshot injuries Jorge Hernandez sustained during an exchange of gunfire between Fantasia’s security guards and an armed patron.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Nautilus, concluding that the policy’s “Exclusion — All Assault or Battery” endorsement excluded coverage for any claims arising out of Hernandez’s injuries.
The 10th Circuit affirmed.
Jurinsky v. Arapahoe County Department of Human Services
On Jan. 28, 2022, Danielle Jurinsky alleged that Robin Niceta anonymously called an Arapahoe County Department of Human Services abuse-reporting hotline, falsely stating that she witnessed Jurinsky sexually abuse her son on two occasions. The complaint also alleges that Niceta tried to interfere with the investigation and accessed or attempted to access an ACDHS database to alter, destroy or fabricate evidence related to the call.
Shortly after, ACDHS contacted Jurinsky about the report. Jurinsky said she was a public official and that the false report of abuse was likely retaliation, according to the opinion.
Jurinsky claimed Niceta and ACDHS violated her procedural and substantive due process rights by interfering with her familial relations and denied her equal protection by treating her less favorably than others similarly situated.
The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Jurinsky’s amended complaint failed to allege the differential treatment and similarly situated elements required to state an equal protection claim, and that as a result, she failed to allege Niceta violated her due process or equal protection rights.
The 10th Circuit also found that the district court did not err in dismissing Jurinsky’s municipal liability claim.
The 10th Circuit affirmed.