Hortica-Florists' Mutual Ins. v. Pittman Nursery Corporation
729 F.3d 846
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Hortica issued multiple Hortica Greenhouse packages (CGL, Excess, EPL, and ED) to Pittman Nursery Corp. (PNC); five underlying lawsuits arose from a family dispute over the business; Hortica filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to clarify its defense obligations; PNC counter-claimed for negligence, bad faith, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and punitive damages; district court found Hortica had a duty to defend in some suits and dismissed some counter-claims as JAML; the jury awarded PNC damages for negligence and bad faith, which the district court later JAML’d; on appeal, PNC challenges attorney’s-fee awards, JAML rulings, and evidentiary exclusions; the court reverses on the fee issue and affirms other rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attorneys’ fees for declaratory judgment defense | PNC entitled to fees under Ark. § 23-79-209(a) | Hortica did not owe fees for declaratory action since no judgment against Hortica on counter-claims | PNC entitled to fees for defense of declaratory judgment; remand for fee amount |
| Post-verdict JAML on bad faith and negligence | Evidence supports bad faith and negligence; JAML inappropriate | Insufficient evidence to show bad faith or proximate causation | District court’s post-verdict JAML affirmed; insufficient evidence of bad faith/negligence to sustain jury verdicts on those claims |
| Pre-verdict JAML on breach of fiduciary duty and punitive damages | Fiduciary duties and punitive damages claims should go to jury | No triable issue; no breach or punitive damages shown | Pre-verdict JAML affirmed; no basis for breach of fiduciary duty or punitive damages under the record |
| Exclusion of evidence supporting counter-claims | Excluded communications show insurer’s bad-faith conduct | Evidence was immaterial or cumulative; no abuse of discretion | No reversible error; district court’s evidentiary ruling affirmed},{ |
Key Cases Cited
- Newcourt Fin. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., 15 S.W.3d 328 (Ark. 2000) (declaratory judgments in insurance context; purpose to declare rights)
- S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Krouse, 375 S.W.3d 763 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (insurer duty to defend; declaratory judgments; fees considerations)
- S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Watkins, 386 S.W.3d 6 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011) (fees for defense of declaratory action; fee-shifting statute applied)
- Willett's Plumbing Co. v. Nw. Nat. Cas. Co., 548 S.W.2d 830 (Ark. 1977) (insurer settlement duties; right to settlement considerations)
- Silverball Amusement, Inc. v. Utah Home Fire Ins. Co., 842 F. Supp. 1151 (W.D. Ark. 1994) (interpretation of coverage and exclusions; consent to amendment)
- Roser, 585 F.2d 932 (8th Cir. 1978) (insurer’s duties; conflicts of interest and bad faith)
- Luke v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 476 F.2d 1015 (8th Cir. 1973) (settlement duties of insurer; good faith negotiation)