Triple H Debris Removal, Inc. v. Companion Property & Casualty Insurance Co.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15827
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Companion issued Policy One (April 21, 2005–April 21, 2006) with premiums based on actual payroll and subject to audits.
- A first audit reclassified Triple H's tasks, increasing the premium; Companion issued an endorsement and an invoice for the higher amount.
- Triple H did not pay the additional premium; Companion cancelled Policy One effective August 21, 2005.
- Triple H paid the outstanding amount and Companion issued Policy Two (September 15, 2005–April 21, 2006).
- Companion conducted a final audit on Policy One, resulting in a $1,853.00 due; a Dispute Resolution Protocol required a bona fide dispute to suspend billing.
- Triple H disputed via agent Watkins; Triple H received a cancellation notice for Policy Two (dated January 3, 2006; signed for January 7, 2006); Triple H injury occurred February 16, 2006; Companion denied coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion denying judicial notice | Triple H contends Watkins was Companion's agent and the court should take judicial notice. | Companion argues the agency status is disputed and judicial notice is inappropriate; also cautions against judicial estoppel. | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
| Whether Watkins's agency status affects the agency issue presented to the jury | Watkins acted as Companion's agent enabling a bona fide dispute defense. | Watkins was not an agent for the policies at issue; agency status is disputed and for jury resolution. | Instruction not erroneous; agency issue properly submitted for jury resolution. |
| Whether Triple H raised a bona fide dispute under Policy One | Triple H provided information disputing the audit and met all three bona fide dispute requirements. | Triple H failed to provide a detailed explanation of why the amount was incorrect; thus three elements not met. | Jury could conclude Triple H failed to meet all three requirements; verdict supported. |
| Whether Policy Two cancellation was proper given the dispute | If bona fide dispute existed, Policy Two could not be canceled during dispute period. | Dispute did not suspend cancellation; notice and timing supported cancellation. | Evidence supported proper cancellation of Policy Two; verdict affirmed. |
| Whether the evidence supports the jury verdict on cancellation and bona fide dispute | Disputed premium and agency status created a triable issue on cancellation and disputes. | Evidence showed proper cancellation and lack of sufficient bona fide dispute. | Sufficient evidence supported the jury verdict; no reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Capella Univ., Inc. v. Exec. Risk Specialty Ins. Co., 617 F.3d 1040 (8th Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion in judicial estoppel and pretrial statements)
- Johnson International Co. v. Jackson National Life Ins. Co., 19 F.3d 431 (8th Cir. 1994) (trial evidence governs post-trial agency determinations; focus on trial record)
- Craig Outdoor Adver., Inc. v. Viacom Outdoor, Inc., 528 F.3d 1001 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing jury verdicts; favorable inferences to jury verdict)