Occidental Fire & Casualty Co. v. Adam Soczynski
765 F.3d 931
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- This is an insurance coverage dispute arising from a fatal accident involving Hipp's Trucking and two policies (Great West on ATS freight, and Occidental bobtail).
- The accident occurred March 10, 2009 on a Minnesota road when Hipp’s trailer crossed the center line and hit Amy Soczynski, killing her.
- Great West tendered its $1 million policy limits and ATS’s denial of liability remained; Hipp assigned potential claims against Occidental as part of a settlement.
- A state-court settlement allocated damages at $2.75 million; Great West paid $1 million to settle, and Adam reserved pursuit of Occidental’s policy limits.
- Occidental filed for declaratory relief in federal court; Adam counterclaims for coverage, limited to $1 million, and bad-faith damages were later dismissed.
- The district court granted summary judgment resolving coverage issues, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, addressing judicial estoppel, coverage exclusions, and policy limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial estoppel applies to bar Adam's federal suit? | Occidental | Adam prevailed in state court | No abuse of discretion; not precluded by estoppel |
| Does the bobtail policy provide coverage for the accident? | Bobtail excludes coverage only if Hipp acted for ATS | Exclusion applies; Hipp acted for ATS at the time | Yes, coverage under bobtail; exclusion not triggered |
| Was Hipp acting for or on behalf of ATS at the time of the accident? | Hipp acted for ATS under ATS’s authority | Hipp acted for himself, not ATS | Hipp was operating for himself, not ATS |
| What are the bobtail policy limits? | Policy limits were $1,000,000 | Declarations show $500,000; endorsement suggests $1,000,000 | Ambiguity resolved against Occidental; limits are $1,000,000 |
Key Cases Cited
- Pendleton v. State, 706 N.W.2d 500 (Minn. 2005) (three conditions for judicial estoppel in Minnesota)
- E.E.O.C. v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., 679 F.3d 657 (8th Cir. 2012) (protect the integrity of the judicial process)
- Rusthoven v. Commercial Standard Ins. Co., 387 N.W.2d 642 (Minn. 1986) (ambiguous policy language construed against insurer; reasonable expectations)
- Curtis v. Home Insurance Co., 392 N.W.2d 44 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) (ambiguous policy construed for insured when affidavits indicate limits)
- Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bloomington Steel & Supply Co., 718 N.W.2d 888 (Minn. 2006) (strictly construes exclusions in favor of insured)