Ritrama, Inc. v. HDI-Gerling America Insurance
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14018
8th Cir.2015Background
- Ritrama manufactured RV graphics films and faced quality issues reported by Burlington, its former customer, starting in 2008.
- Burlington communicated substantial monetary damages and sought settlement, culminating in a September 2008 damages spreadsheet totaling about $53,219.37.
- Ritrama purchased a claims-made CGL policy from Gerling, covering claims made between March 31, 2009 and March 31, 2010; policy defined when a claim is made but did not define 'claim.'
- Burlington demanded payment and later sued Ritrama in 2011; Gerling denied coverage in 2011, and Ritrama filed suit in 2013 claiming the defense duty.
- District court held Burlington had made a pre-policy 'claim' for damages, thus the policy did not cover the claim; summary judgment for Gerling followed.
- Ritrama appeals, challenging the district court’s definition of 'claim,' its unambiguity ruling, and the sufficiency of Burlington’s asserted claim prior to policy inception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is a claim under the policy? | Ritrama argues the term is ambiguous or should require a written demand over a threshold; contends the district court’s broad definition is unreasonable. | Gerling contends a broad definition aligning with third-party demand for relief is appropriate and consistent with the policy's purpose. | Claim is the demand or assertion for relief; the district court’s definition is adopted and upheld. |
| Is the term 'claim' unambiguous in this policy? | Ritrama claims ambiguity due to multiple dictionary meanings and policy context. | Gerling argues the term has a clear, ordinary meaning when read in context and with the policy as a whole. | Term is unambiguous; it means a third party’s demand or assertion for relief. |
| Did Burlington's September 2008 damages spreadsheet constitute a pre-policy claim? | Ritrama contends the spreadsheet was a negotiation not a claim and was not recorded as a claim by Ritrama's risk manager. | Gerling argues the spreadsheet was a written demand for damages and thus a claim under the policy. | Spreadsheet constituted a claim/demand for relief; thus pre-policy claim exists. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berry v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 70 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 1995) (claim defined as a demand for relief in damages)
- Int'l Ins. Co. v. RSR Corp., 426 F.3d 281 (5th Cir. 2005) (claim defined as an assertion of liability for damages within policy scope)
- Cargill, Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co., 642 N.W.2d 80 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002) (reverses district court on claim-formation interpretation under policy context)
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Mo. United Sch. Ins. Council, 98 F.3d 343 (8th Cir. 1996) (contextual approach to when a claim for relief is made)
- Genesis Ins. Co. v. City of Council Bluffs, 677 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2012) (policy terms read in light of context; ambiguity requires two reasonable interpretations)
- Hawkeye-Sec. Ins. Co. v. Bunch, 643 F.3d 646 (8th Cir. 2011) (contextual interpretation of policy terms)
- Phila. Consol. Holding Corp. v. LSI-Lowery Sys., Inc., 775 F.3d 1072 (8th Cir. 2015) (recognizes definition of 'claim' as a demand for relief within policy context)