Fluor Corporation v. Zurich American Insurance Co., 65 F.4th 387

Zurich insured St. Joe/Fluor (1981–1985) for comprehensive general liability covering bodily injury; Declarations showed $500,000 "each occurrence" (combined single limit).
Residents sued over lead emissions; Zurich defended, paid settlements (~$9.87M) and contributed >$25M to one settlement; Fluor later faced a $300M settlement after trial.
Zurich sued for a declaratory judgment; Fluor counterclaimed for insurer bad faith failure to settle.
District court granted summary judgment to Zurich, concluding the policies imposed $3.5M per-occurrence limits that were exhausted, so no bad-faith liability.
On appeal the Eighth Circuit majority reversed the district court’s policy-limits ruling, holding Endorsement 7 amended limits to $500,000 per-claim for (at least) incidental professional liability and remanded for further proceedings; Judge Colloton dissented, arguing endorsement applies only to incidental professional liability and the district court was correct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Fluor)	Defendant's Argument (Zurich)	Held
Whether Endorsement 7 converted comprehensive general liability limits from per-occurrence to per-claim (so higher aggregate exposure)	Endorsement 7's text amends Item 3 to "$500,000 each claim" for comprehensive general liability, thus per-claim limits apply	Endorsement 7 applies only to incidental professional liability; Declarations and other endorsements preserve $500,000 per-occurrence CSL	Majority: Endorsement 7 modified limits to per-claim (district court erred). Dissent: would affirm per-occurrence interpretation
Whether exhaustion of policy limits defeats Fluor's bad-faith claim	Even if limits were exhausted, insurer’s failure to timely notify insured of exhaustion supports bad-faith claim	Limits were exhausted before settlement negotiations; duty to settle/defend ended so no bad faith	Court declined to reach merits because the notice argument was not preserved; remanded on limits question
Whether Fluor preserved argument that Zurich failed to give timely notice of exhaustion	Fluor raised this theory on appeal	Zurich: argument not raised below	Not preserved — appellate court will not consider it

Seaton v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 574 S.W.3d 245 (Mo. 2019) (policy interpreted by ordinary purchaser; plain-meaning rule)
Doe Run Res. Corp. v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins., 531 S.W.3d 508 (Mo. 2017) (contract interpretation principles for insurance policies)
Ritchie v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 307 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. 2009) (evaluate insurance policies as a whole)
Merlyn Vandervort Invs., LLC v. Essex Ins. Co., Inc., 309 S.W.3d 333 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) (endorsement prevails where it conflicts with policy)
Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014) (last-antecedent rule is not absolute)
Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20 (2003) (textual context can overcome last-antecedent rule)
Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mid-Am. Grain Distribs., LLC, 958 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review: de novo for summary judgment/declaratory rulings)
Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 812 F.3d 1147 (8th Cir. 2016) (cited on choice-of-law and interpretive issues)