Justia U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Geral Brown appealed a district court's order that granted summary judgment to Defendant Hartford Insurance Company (Hartford). Plaintiff sued Hartford under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) for the company's termination of his long-term disability benefits. Following his injury, Plaintiff filed for Social Security Disability benefits as required by his benefit plan, and the Social Security Administration awarded him benefits. The plan then offset the monthly benefit it paid to Plaintiff by the amount of the Social Security benefit. The Hartford denied Plaintiff's administrative appeal. After examining and weighing the evidence, the trial court granted summary judgment to the Hartford. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the plan administrator's decision was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the district court.

BancInsure, Inc. appealed a declaratory judgment in favor of Columbian Financial Corporation and a former director, Carl McCaffree (collectively the Insureds). The insurance policy at issue here was a "claims-made" policy covered any claim made to BancInsure against any Columbian officer or director for a "Wrongful Act" as defined by the policy. A disputed provision of the policy pertained to the scope of coverage if Columbian was placed in receivership or otherwise ceased to engage in active banking business. The parties interpreted the provision differently. The Insureds contended that if Columbian went into receivership, the policy covered all claims made through the end of the original policy period, although only for Wrongful Acts committed before the receivership. BancInsure contended that the policy covered only claims made before the receivership. The operation of the disputed provision became relevant in August 2008 when the Kansas State Bank Commissioner declared Columbian insolvent and appointed the FDIC as its receiver. Soon thereafter, Columbian’s management sent BancInsure a letter to notify it of potential claims by the FDIC and others. The parties disputed many of the claims against Columbian which led to Columbian filing suit to the district court to determine which claims were covered under the policy. The sole issue on appeal to the Tenth Circuit was whether the district court had jurisdiction. Though no party disputed jurisdiction, the Tenth Circuit found that there was no actual controversy between the parties when the district court below rendered its judgment. The court therefore lacked jurisdiction. The Tenth Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded to case with instructions to the court to vacate its judgment.

After a jury trial, Defendant David Hillman was convicted on several money laundering charges arising from a scheme to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from the insurance company for which he worked. Defendant's defense at trial was that he was duped by his then-girlfriend and co-worker, Hillary Shaffer, as to the source of the money. Defendant maintained that Ms. Shaffer told him the money they deposited in their joint bank account came from her grandmother's trust. The trial record revealed that the source of the money came from inactive annuities of the company's clients. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant argued multiple errors at trial: prosecutorial misconduct, a violation of his due process rights, and misguided jury instructions all denied him a fair trial. Upon review of Defendant's arguments against the trial record, the Tenth Circuit concluded that none of his claims fundamentally affected the fairness of his trial or were otherwise an abuse of discretion by the trial court. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendant's conviction.

Defendants-Appellants Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers) and Mid-Century Insurance Company (Mid-Century) removed a putative class action suit from state court to federal district court. Upon motion of Plaintiff-Appellee Lawrence Countryman, the federal court remanded the case back to the state court based on a procedural defect in the Defendantsâ notice of removal. Specifically, Defendants were required to attach copies of all process, pleadings and orders for both Farmers and Mid-Century. The copies served to all parties in this case only contained those pertaining to Farmers, not Mid-Century. Defendants supplemented their joint notice or removal to include the missing Mid Century documents. Defendants challenged the lower courtâs remand of the case to state court. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the Defendantsâ omission was an inadvertent, procedural defect that was timely cured, and caused no prejudice to Plaintiffs. The Court vacated the district courtâs decision, and remanded the case back to federal court.

In New Mexico, title insurance is totally regulated by the state. Under its âTitle Insurance Act,â the state superintendent of insurance holds yearly public hearings to establish premium rates insurers can charge for title insurance. At the close of the hearings, a legal or âfiled rateâ is published by the agency. Once set, the filed rate is considered âper se reasonable and unassailable in judicial proceedings brought by ratepayers.â The policy behind the filed rate is to prevent price discrimination, preserve the role of agencies in approving rates and âto keep courts out of the rate-making process.â The New Mexico Insurance Code does not apply to title insurers except to the extent that the Title Insurance Act provides otherwise. Plaintiffs Coll and others brought suit alleging generally that the Title Insurance Act violates numerous New Mexico constitutional and statutory provisions precluding price fixing and creating monopolies. Plaintiffs also allege that the Insurer Defendants conspired with the insurance superintendent to establish a premium rate that is unreasonably high. Based on these theories, Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief; compensatory, punitive and statutory damages; Defendantsâ disgorgement of their profits; and attorneysâ fees and costs. The lower court dismissed Plaintiffsâ claims with prejudice and remanded to state court all claims asserted against the state Defendants. The Tenth Circuit District Court agreed with the lower courtâs decision that the âfiled rateâ doctrine precluded Plaintiffsâ claims against the Defendants. The Court affirmed the district courtâs dismissal of Plaintiffs claims and remanded the case to the lower court for review of claims brought on state constitutional and procedural grounds.

A truck owned by Defendant-Appellant Blutone Enterprises was involved in an accident that resulted in personal injury to three people. Plaintiff-Appellee Mid-Continent Casualty Company brought suit seeking a declaratory judgment that at the time of the accident, the truck was not covered by its commercial vehicle policy, because the insurance cards issued to the vehicle did not actually list the vehicle on its face. Under "MAKE/MODEL" the card said "fleet." The cards were deemed inadmissible at trial because they could not be tied to the vehicle in the accident. Both parties sought judgment on whether the vehicle was covered as a "fleet" vehicle. At trial, the jury sided with Plaintiffs, and Defendants brought this appeal arguing that the identification cards should have been admitted at trial. After review of case, this Court affirmed the lower court's decision.