This case involved a dispute over whether a commercial general liability insurance policy issued by Colony National Insurance Company to Ace Manufacturing covered employee Linda Cunningham for a negligence claim brought by her co-worker Scott Morris. Morris suffered a hand injury when Cunningham restarted a malfunctioning stamp press during a repair attempt at work. Colony sought a declaratory judgment that Cunningham was not an "insured" under the policy for injuries to co-employees in the course of employment. The court granted summary judgment to Colony, holding that the policy's explicit exclusion for bodily injuries to co-employees during employment meant Cunningham was not covered, consistent with Missouri precedent interpreting such clauses.
business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liability
The case involved civil rights activist Percy Green suing over twenty defendants, including police officers, school board members, city officials, and prosecutors, for alleged violations of his constitutional rights and Missouri common law stemming from his 2003 arrest at a St. Louis School Board meeting and related prosecution. Green asserted claims under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as statutory civil rights violations and common law torts, alleging excessive force, lack of probable cause, retaliation for his activism, and related municipal policies. In a memorandum and order addressing three separate summary judgment motions from different defendant groups, the district court granted summary judgment on some claims and denied it on others after reviewing evidence on issues such as probable cause for arrest and the existence of unconstitutional policies or practices.
This case involved excess insurer Zurich suing primary insurer USF&G and claims handler TIG to recover $17 million paid in a wrongful death lawsuit against their mutual insured, Consolidated Freightways, after a large jury verdict. Zurich claimed the defendants failed to settle the underlying case in good faith. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that Missouri law bars an insurer from pursuing a bad faith failure-to-settle claim as a subrogee and prohibits assignment of such claims.
In Brown v. United States, petitioner Clifton Brown filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence after pleading guilty to drug and firearm offenses, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel on three grounds: waiver of pretrial suppression motions without showing him the warrant, failure to investigate whether the substance was crack or powder cocaine, and failure to file a notice of appeal despite Brown's request. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted the motion only as to the appeal claim after an evidentiary hearing, vacating the amended judgment and ordering entry of a second amended judgment to restart the appeal period. The court found by a preponderance of the evidence, based on Brown's testimony and a letter he sent to counsel requesting an appeal, that the request was made but not acted upon, which constitutes ineffective assistance because filing a notice of appeal is a purely ministerial task; the remaining claims were denied and no certificate of appealability was issued.
In this case, plaintiff Georgianna Diener sued defendant Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA) for denying her claim for short-term and long-term disability benefits under a group insurance policy that was part of an ERISA-governed employee benefits plan. LINA moved for summary judgment, arguing that Diener had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before filing suit. The court denied the motion because the record was unclear on whether Diener had properly pursued and appealed her claims, due to multiple conflicting policy documents with mismatched numbers, uncertainty over which policy governed her benefits, and a denial letter for long-term benefits that failed to provide the required instructions for a full and fair administrative review under ERISA. The court noted that LINA had not submitted the administrative record and that a prior settlement had addressed some timeliness issues for the long-term claim.
This case involved plaintiff Betty Grba-Craghead's challenge to the denial of her application for Social Security disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The plaintiff alleged disability due to various mental health conditions and learning disorders with an onset date after her prior application was denied, but the Administrative Law Judge found she was not disabled before her insured status expired in 2005. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, affirming the Commissioner's decision because it was supported by substantial evidence in the record, including medical reports showing no qualifying treatment or limitations during the relevant period and inconsistencies in the provided assessments. No objections were filed by either party to the recommendation.
