Alpine Glass, Inc. v. Illinois Farmers Insurance
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12237
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Alpine Glass provided auto-glass repair/replacement in Minnesota and billed Farmers directly for work on insureds who assigned proceeds to Alpine.
- Farmers’ insurance policies contained MN008 (prevailing competitive price) and E1400 (amount necessary to repair/replace safety glass) endorsements, creating potential liability limits.
- Farmers sent blast faxes in 2002 and 2005 listing pricing; Alpine invoiced per its quotes, but Farmers frequently paid less per its pricing lists.
- 1,120 short-pay claims arose where Farmers remitted less than Alpine’s invoiced amounts, triggering the dispute at issue.
- District court dismissed Farmers’ anti-incentive counterclaim; granted Alpine summary judgment on breach of contract; ordered consolidated arbitration; and later addressed whether MN008 or E1400 governs.
- Arbitrator found Farmers underpaid based on a competitive-pricing standard and did not decide which endorsement applied, leading to post-arbitration proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether anti-incentive counterclaim was properly dismissed | Farmers argues Alpine violated § 325F.783 by inducing insureds via incentives. | Alpine contends the statute bans tangible incentives, not contingent pricing, and Alpine’s practice is not an incentive. | Anti-incentive claim properly dismissed |
| What governs liability when both endorsements are present | Farmers seeks application of MN008; argues E1400 was not applicable or controlling. | Alpine argues E1400 governs when both endorsements exist, or at least that the arbitrator applied a competitive pricing standard. | E1400 governs; no need for new arbitration |
| Whether summary judgment on breach of contract was proper | Farmers contends the blast-fax prices constituted offers; Alpine accepted by performing work. | Alpine contends there was no definite unilateral contract; invoicing did not conform to pricing structure. | Summary judgment for Alpine affirmed |
| Whether the arbitration award should be vacated or confirmed | Farmers seeks vacatur to direct new arbitration applying MN008; disputes the outcome under MN008. | Alpine argues the arbitrator applied competitive-pricing standard; no basis to vacate; award is effectively correct under either endorsement. | Arbitration award affirmed; no vacatur required |
Key Cases Cited
- Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co. v. PPG Indus., Inc., 401 F.3d 901 (8th Cir. 2005) (statutory interpretation standard and de novo review)
- Glass Serv. Co. v. Ill. Farmers Ins. Co., 683 N.W.2d 792 (Minn. 2004) (auto-glass pricing regime and legislative scheme)
- Neb. Beef, Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Bus. Credit, Inc., 470 F.3d 1249 (8th Cir. 2006) (unilateral contract elements and contract formation)
- Hunt v. IBM Mid Am. Emps. Fed. Credit Union, 384 N.W.2d 853 (Minn. 1986) (contract formation principles under Minnesota law)
- Markmann v. H.A. Bruntjen Co., 81 N.W.2d 858 (Minn. 1957) (offer/acceptance and contract terminology)