Lowell Burris v. Gulf Underwriters Ins. Co.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8707
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Burris injured in August 2001; sued Versa and Menard in Minnesota state court; Menard removed to federal court under diversity.
- Gulf, Versa's insurer, moved to intervene in 2012; the court stayed liability proceedings pending coverage issue.
- In 2013, Versa admitted liability under a Miller v. Shugart agreement allowing Burris to pursue Gulf for coverage.
- Gulf's policy covered claims made within the March 3–May 5, 2003 period if Versa received the claim notice.
- Burris argued the March 2003 Letter was mailed; Gulf denied receipt/recording; jury later found Versa did not receive it.
- Burris challenged spoliation claim and Letourneau disciplinary history evidence; the district court admitted some evidence and denied a spoliation instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spoliation instruction warranted? | Burris seeks adverse inference for destroyed files. | Gulf argues no intentional destruction or prejudice shown. | District court did not abuse discretion; no instruction warranted. |
| Admission of Letourneau disciplinary history? | Evidence prejudicial and irrelevant to mailing issue. | Evidence relevant to mailing practices and credibility. | District court properly admitted limited disciplinary-history evidence. |
| Sufficiency of new-trial ruling? | New trial needed due to spoliation and evidence errors. | No miscarriage of justice; rulings proper. | Court affirmed denial of new trial. |
| Reviewability of denial of summary judgment? | Challenge denial of summary judgment on coverage issue. | Not subject to review after trial; opportunity to litigate exists. | Not reviewable; affirmed via EEOC v. Sw. Bell rationale. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hallmark Cards, Inc. v. Murley, 703 F.3d 456 (8th Cir. 2013) (adverse instruction standards for spoilation abuse of discretion)
- Sherman v. Rinchem Co., 687 F.3d 996 (8th Cir. 2012) (federal-law standard for spoilation instructions in diversity cases)
- Millenkamp v. Davisco Foods Int'l, Inc., 562 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2009) (no spoilage instruction where destruction not tied to anticipated litigation)
- Adkins v. Wolever, 692 F.3d 499 (6th Cir. 2012) (spoliation instruction requirements; control over destroyed evidence)
- United States v. Jiminez, 487 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 2007) (trial court broad discretion on evidentiary relevance and admissibility)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (unfair prejudice standard under Rule 403)
- EEOC v. Sw. Bell Tel., L.P., 550 F.3d 704 (8th Cir. 2008) (full and fair opportunity to litigate standard for post-trial review)