Yousuf v. Cohlmia
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1080
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- ANPAC appeals summary judgment awarding defense costs to PLICO; PLICO cross-appeals prejudgment interest denial.
- Dr. Yousuf sued Dr. Cohlmia/CVSS in Oklahoma state court for defamation, interference, torts, and later narrowed to negligence and intentional interference; jury verdict against Cohlmia for $5,000,000 without punitive damages.
- PLICO defended under reservation of rights; ANPAC refused to share defense costs, arguing no duty to defend.
- Oklahoma and federal coexistence: court held ANPAC and PLICO each had equal duty to defend the non-excluded claims; district court characterized damages as shared defense costs subject to subrogation.
- Equitable vs contractual subrogation argued; district court held both support recovery; subsequent parties reached an agreed ANPAC share of defense costs; prejudgment interest issues debated.
- Oklahoma appellate decisions on prejudgment interest and liquidated damages were central to the court’s ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to defend under ANPAC policy | ANPAC asserts no duty to defend Cohlmia | PLICO argues ANPAC must defend as the claims fall within policy coverage | ANPAC breached its duty to defend |
| Coverage of intentional interference with business relations | Yousuf claims coverage under personal injury for disparagement | ANPAC argues exclusions apply; public policy concerns | Policy language covers personal injury including disparagement; public policy not invoked to bar defense |
| Policy exclusions 17 and 18 applicability | Exclusions do not preclude coverage for individual professionals | Exclusions bar personal injuries arising from willful statutory violations or organization-asserted statements | Exclusions do not preclude coverage; coverage for Yousuf's claims remains |
| Subrogation and defense costs | Equitable/subrogation grounds support recovery | Duties to defend are personal to each insurer; Tri-State precedent applies | Contractual subrogation allows PLICO to recover one-half of defense costs from ANPAC |
| Prejudgment interest on defense costs | PLIC0 entitled to 15% prejudgment interest under OK law | Regional Air controls; no liquidated damages under statute | Regional Air overruled; prejudgment interest denied due to lack of liquidated/ascertainable damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Bankwest v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 63 F.3d 974 (10th Cir. 1995) (coverage for disparagement/intentional interference under similar policy language)
- First Bank of Turley v. Fid. & Deposit Ins. Co. of Md., 928 P.2d 298 (Okla. 1996) (duty to defend broader than indemnity; insurer may defend under reservation)
- Regional Air, Inc. v. Canal Insurance Co., 639 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2011) (prejudgment interest under §3629(B) applies to verdicts, not general judgments)
- Dulan v. Johnston, 687 P.2d 1045 (Okla. 1984) (overruled Regional Air on prejudgment interest; applies to judgments, not only verdicts)
- Republican Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Fire Ins. Exch., 655 P.2d 544 (Okla. 1982) (equitable subrogation limitations)
- United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Corp., 37 P.3d 828 (Okla. 2001) (equitable subrogation principles; clarity on liability)