Iovino v. AmTrust Financial Services, Inc.
2:22-cv-01974
| D. Nev. | Mar 24, 2025Background
- Carmen Iovino was injured in a car accident while driving a company truck for his employer, TopNotch Services, Inc.; the at-fault driver was unknown.
- Iovino sought underinsured/uninsured motorist (UIM) benefits from TopNotch's insurer, Security National Insurance Company (SNIC), claiming his injuries exceeded the $1 million policy limit, but he was paid less than half that amount.
- Iovino sued SNIC, its parent AmTrust Financial Services, Inc., and AmTrust North America, alleging breach of contract, bad faith, unfair practices, and fraud.
- SNIC counterclaimed, alleging Iovino voided the policy by misrepresenting claims of lost earnings, since his income increased after the accident.
- Iovino moved for summary judgment to defeat SNIC's counterclaim and also objected to a magistrate order requiring him to pay sanctions for discovery abuses.
- The court ruled on three motions: granting summary judgment to Iovino, affirming the sanctions order, and granting SNIC’s motion to seal certain filings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Iovino misrepresented lost earnings/loss of earning capacity to void policy | Iovino's statements about likely losses were supported by medical/disability findings and were not material misrepresentations. | Iovino misrepresented losses because his post-accident income increased, negating lost earnings claims. | Iovino did not make material misrepresentations; summary judgment granted to Iovino. |
| Appropriateness of discovery sanctions against Iovino | Objected, arguing sanctions were unwarranted. | Sanctions for discovery-related disputes were appropriate. | Sanctions order affirmed; objection overruled. |
| Motion to seal by SNIC | Not contested by Iovino. | Sought to seal filings related to summary judgment and expert reports. | Motion to seal granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summarizes what is a genuine dispute of material fact on summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (discusses the burden of parties on summary judgment)
- Zetwick v. Cnty. of Yolo, 850 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 2017) (standard to view evidence in light favorable to non-movant on summary judgment)
- Sonner v. Schwabe N. Am., Inc., 911 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2018) (nonmoving party must submit evidence of genuine issue for trial)