Westfield Insurance Company v. Robinson Outdoors, Inc.
700 F.3d 1172
8th Cir.2012Background
- Robinson Outdoors, Inc. bought two Westfield policies covering 2005 and 2006 with personal and advertising injury coverage.
- Policies define personal and advertising injury to include disparaging ads and use of another's advertising idea, but exclude failure-to-conform claims.
- Consumers filed multiple underlying lawsuits alleging Robinson’s scent-eliminating hunting clothing misrepresented product attributes.
- Westfield refused defense and indemnity, citing pre-policy publications and the failure-to-conform exclusion, and Robinson settled the underlying suits.
- Robinson filed a declaratory-judgment action in January 2010; the district court granted Westfield summary judgment.
- On appeal, Robinson challenges coverage and argues reasonable-expectations; the court reviews de novo and Minnesota law applies; burden-shifting applies for coverage versus exclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the underlying claims covered or excluded by the failure-to-conform provision? | Robinson: claims are within coverage and not excluded. | Westfield: claims are excluded by failure-to-conform. | Exclusion applies; no coverage. |
| Does the reasonable-expectations doctrine apply? | Robinson: doctrine should apply. | Westfield: doctrine not raised below; not reviewable on appeal. | Not considered on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- AMCO Ins. Co. v. Inspired Techs., Inc., 648 F.3d 875 (8th Cir. 2011) (construction of policy inclusion vs. exclusion; strict interpretation of exclusions)
- General Cas. Co. of Wis. v. Wozniak Travel, Inc., 762 N.W.2d 572 (Minn. 2009) (read policies in favor of coverage; look beyond labels)
- Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mut. Ins. Co., 819 N.W.2d 602 (Minn. 2012) (burden-shifting: insured must show coverage; insurer bears burden on exclusion)
- Meadowbrook, Inc. v. Tower Ins. Co., 559 N.W.2d 411 (Minn. 1997) (compare underlying allegations to policy language)
- Thommes v. Milwaukee Ins. Co., 641 N.W.2d 877 (Minn. 2002) (exclusions construed narrowly against insurer)
- Noran Neurological Clinic, P.A. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 229 F.3d 707 (8th Cir. 2000) (ambiguous policy terms require interpretation in insured's favor)
- Lobeck v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 582 N.W.2d 246 (Minn. 1998) (exclusions and policy terms considered part of contract)