AMERICAN TRAVELERS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, nоw known as Conseco Senior Health Insurance Company, Appellant, v. AIG LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 03-1019, 03-1020
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Submitted: Oct. 20, 2003. Filed: Jan. 7, 2004.
354 F.3d 755
the nonmoving party.” Dush v. Appleton Elec. Co., 124 F.3d 957, 962-63 (8th Cir. 1997). However, a “nonmovant must present more than a scintilla of evidence and must advance specific facts to create a genuine issue of material fact for trial.” F.D.I.C. v. Bell, 106 F.3d 258, 263 (8th Cir. 1997).
Clark points to no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. Thus, the question whether Clark signed the Agreement under duress is an issue of law. See Anselmo v. Mfrs. Life Ins. Co., 771 F.2d 417, 419-20 (8th Cir. 1985) (stating whether particular facts are sufficient to constitute duress is a matter of law) (citing Jamestown Farmers Elevator, Inc. v. General Mills, 552 F.2d 1285, 1290 (8th Cir. 1977)). Under Missouri law,3 the central question with respect to duress is whether, considering all surrounding circumstances, one party to the transaction was prevented from exercising his free will by the threats or wrongful conduct of the other. Andes v. Albano, 853 S.W.2d 936, 942 (Mo. 1993) (en banc); Slone v. Purina Mills, Inc., 927 S.W.2d 358, 370-71 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). “[T]he victim must have been so acted upon by the threats ... as to deprive the victim of the mental state essential to the making of a contract.” Landmark N. County Bank & Trust Co. v. Nat‘l Cable Training Ctrs., Inc., 738 S.W.2d 886, 891 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).
Because Clark points to no facts indicating he was prevented from exercising his free will by threats or wrongful conduct, we conclude he was not under duress when he signed the Agreement. Likely this was a stressful situation for Clark, and under pressure he made a decision he later regretted. Clark‘s dissatisfaction, however, stems from a lack of favorable bargaining position and knowing the future of his employment was in the hands of a Board which was less than hospitable toward him. The “fact that the choice was difficult does not mean that he lacked the requisite free will to make the decision.” Anselmo, 771 F.2d at 420.
The Fire Protection District provided Clark a copy of the Agreement five days before the meeting; Clark reviewed the Agreement prior to meeting with the Board; and the Board provided Clark a recess during the meeting to further review and consider his options. Considering these circumstances, we agree with the district court that the Board‘s desire to resolve the dispute before its evening adjournment did not prеclude Clark from exercising his free will at the time he executed the Agreement. Also, any failure of Clark‘s representative to discuss the agreement and its implications does not equate to the Board‘s imposition of duress on Clark.
For these reasons, we affirm the district court‘s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Fire Protection District.
Before BYE, JOHN R. GIBSON, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
BYE, Circuit Judge.
American Travelеrs Life Insurance Company n/k/a Conseco Senior Health Insurance Company appeals the district court‘s1 grant of summary judgment and order awarding attorney‘s fees to AIG Life Insurance Company. AIG appeals the district court‘s reduction of the amount claimed for attorney‘s fees and the court‘s rеfusal to award indemnification for AIG‘s $5000 settlement contribution. We affirm.
I
This case arises out of the issuance of a long-term nursing home healthcare insurance policy sold to Arden Haley by AIG in September 1986. Coverage was to commence only in the event the nursing home stay was preceded by a hospitаl stay of at least three consecutive days. In effect on July 12, 1989, the State of North Dakota, pursuant to
[AIG] hereby grants, transfers and assigns absolutely to [Conseco] any rights it has, had or may have to impose any defense, set-off or recoupment, whether under the terms of a Policy or otherwise, on account of any claim arising from a loss in respect of a Policy on and after the Closing Date (other than claims reserved by [AIG] under paragraph 2.2(a) hereof).
The purchase agreement also contained the following indemnification clause,
Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, [Conseco] hereby agrees for the benefit of [AIG Life] to assume, carry out, pay and perform, on and after the Closing Date, those duties and obligations required to be performed in respect of the insured under Policies, including all renewals. Such obligations will include the payment of all сlaims or amounts due to such persons whether or not the claim was made or incurred before or after the Closing Date. [Conseco] will indemnify [AIG Life] and save it harmless from and against all such duties and obligations.
Upon assuming AIG‘s policies, Conseco sent a letter to policyholders stating,
The purpose оf this letter is to inform you of an agreement reached between [AIG] and [Conseco]. This agreement provides that effective June 30, 1991, [Conseco] reinsured and assumed all of AIG‘s group and individual nursing home and other long term care policies. Your policy is included in this group of policies. This ‘reinsurance and assumption’ means that [Conseco] has assumed all responsibility for the payment of benefits under your policy. Similarly, [Conseco] will be responsible for the billing and collection of your premiums.
Conseco‘s letter to Haley advised it was in her best interests to maintain the policy because no better lоng-term healthcare policy existed. Conseco did not bring
Haley continued her coverage after Conseco assumed the policy and on April 22, 1997, was admitted to a nursing home without prior hospitalization. Thereafter, Haley submitted a claim for benefits which Conseco promptly denied. Haley responded by suing AIG and Conseco alleging breach of contract, bad faith and fraudulent misrepresentation. Haley argued
AIG immediately tendered defense of the suit to Conseco but the tender was refused. AIG and Conseco then filed cross-claims alleging each had a duty under the purchase agreement to indemnify the other for the costs of defense and any judgment or settlement.2 Both insurers moved for summary judgment agаinst Haley and the district court dismissed the contract claims but allowed the other claims to proceed. AIG and Conseco sub-
sequently
Thereafter, AIG moved for summary judgment on its cross-claim for indemnification. The district сourt granted AIG‘s request for attorney‘s fees and costs of defense holding the language of the purchase agreement was broad enough to indicate the parties intended Conseco to assume responsibility for the Haley litigation. The court, however, refused to award AIG indemnification for its $5000 settlement contribution. AIG then moved for attorney‘s fees and costs in the amount of $207,544.72. The district court calculated the reasonable value of the fees and costs and awarded AIG $66,839.76 On appeal, Conseco argues the district court erred in finding the purchase agreement anticipated Conseco shоuld be responsible for defending AIG in the Haley litigation. AIG‘s appeal argues the district court erred in reducing the attorney‘s fees and costs and in refusing to award indemnification for its contribution to the settlement.
II
This diversity action is governed by Pennsylvania state substantive law. Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). We review the district court‘s grant of summary judgment and its application of state law de novo. Lerohl v. Friends of Minn. Sinfonia, 322 F.3d 486, 488 (8th Cir. 2003); Reimer v. City of Crookston, 326 F.3d 957, 961 (8th Cir. 2003).
A. Indemnification—Attorney‘s Fees and Costs
To determine whether Conseco must indemnify AIG for attorney‘s fees and costs we look to the language of the indemnification agreement. When the terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous, the intent of the parties is gleaned from the express language of the agreement. Kiewit E. Co. v. L & R Constr. Co., 44 F.3d 1194, 1199 (3d Cir. 1995) (applying Pennsylvania law). Conseco does not contend the indemnification agreement is ambiguous. Rather, it argues the language of the agreement requires indemnification only if “this [had] been an ordinary claim on a policy for simple coverage....” Conseco Rеply Brief and Cross-Appeal Response, p. 15. In other words, Conseco contends Haley did not bring a simple breach of contract claim so as to trigger Conseco‘s duty to defend.
Count I of the complaint clearly alleges breach of contract against both AIG and Conseco for failure tо pay benefits. Conseco contends Haley‘s breach of contract claim against AIG was frivolous because benefits were denied long after AIG sold the policy to Conseco. The merits of the allegations, however, are irrelevant. It is clear Haley sued AIG for breach of contract аnd the suit fell within the language of the indemnification agreement, thereby triggering Conseco‘s duty to defend.
Notwithstanding its duty to defend against the breach of contract claim, Conseco argues it had no duty to defend AIG against the bad faith or fraud claims. This argument is also unpersuasive. The bad faith and fraud claims arose оut of the contractual relationship between AIG and Haley which Conseco assumed. See Birth Ctr. v. St. Paul Cos., 567 Pa. 386, 787 A.2d 376, 385 (2001) (holding a bad faith dispute between insurer and insured flows from the contract and “[b]reach of ... [the] obligation [to act in good faith] constitutes a breach of the insurance contract ....“) (quoting Gray v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 422 Pa. 500, 223 A.2d 8, 11 (1966)). Conseco‘s characterization of the claims as
Having concluded the indemnification agreement required Conseco to defend AIG against Haley‘s claims, we must next determine whether indemnifying AIG for its defense costs violates Pennsylvania‘s public policy against indemnification for negligent or fraudulent conduct. We conclude it does not.
Conseco argues Pennsylvania law precludes a party from seеking indemnification for its own negligence or fraud absent explicit language in the indemnification agreement showing the parties clearly intended such an outcome. Ruzzi v. Butler Petroleum Co., 527 Pa. 1, 588 A.2d 1, 4 (1991). Conseco‘s argument is correct so far as it goes. “[I]n order for an indemnity provision ... cover[ing] losses due to the indemnitee‘s own negligenсe to be enforceable, the parties must contract ‘in clear and unequivocal language.‘” IU N. Am., Inc. v. Gage Co., 2002 WL 1277327, at *5 (E.D. Pa. June 4, 2002) (quoting Ruzzi, 588 A.2d at 4).
The liability on such indemnity is so hazardous, and the character of the indemnity so unusual and extraordinary, that there can be no presumption that the indemnitor intended to assume the responsibility unless the contrаct puts it beyond doubt by express stipulation. No inference from words of general import can establish it.
Ruzzi, 588 A.2d at 4 (quoting Perry v. Payne, 217 Pa. 252, 66 A. 553, 556 (1907)).
The public policy announced in Perry and reiterated in Ruzzi, however, applies only in cases where a party is seeking indemnification for its actual negligence. Mace v. Atl. Ref. & Mkt. Corp., 567 Pa. 71, 785 A.2d 491, 496 (2001). The prohibition does not bar indemnification for fees and costs incurred defending against mеritless allegations of negligence or fraud. Id.; Jack Greenberg, Inc. v. Thornton, LLP, 1997 WL 860673, at *6 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Dec. 12, 1997). In such cases, the losses for which the party seeks indemnification “(i.e., the attorneys’ fees and cost which it incurred in defending against the ... claims) will not have been caused by its own negligence or fraudulent conduct.” Jack Greenberg, Inc., 1997 WL 860673, at *6.
Conseco concedes AIG did not commit fraud. Cоnseco Reply Brief and Cross-Appeal Response, p. 13 (“Indeed, there was no fraud in this case. The Complaint against both insurers was frivolous.“). Accordingly, awarding AIG attorney‘s fees and costs will not result in indemnification for any wrongdoing. Rather, it will give effect to the parties’ agreement which anticipated Conseco would defend AIG against any claims brought by policyholders arising out of the denial of insurance benefits.
B. Amount of Attorney‘s Fees and Costs
We review awards of attorney‘s fees and costs for abuse of discretion. Pinkham v. Camex, Inc., 84 F.3d 292, 294 (8th Cir. 1996); Borough of Bradford Woods v. Platts, 799 A.2d 984, 991 (2002) (“The ‘reasonableness’ of attorney fees ... is a matter to be decided through the sound discretion of the trial court, аnd an appellate court should not alter such a decision unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion.“). We review the district court‘s factual findings for clear error, but our review of the applicable legal principles is plenary. Pinkham, 84 F.3d at 294.
The district court initially sought to apply a lodestar approach to AIG‘s claim for attorney‘s fees. AIG, however, failed to еstablish the reasonableness of the hours and hourly rate it was claiming. Accordingly, the court rejected AIG‘s proffered figure and, after considering additional factors, concluded an award of $66,839.76 was appropriate. Among the factors the court considered were 1) the case was settled withоut a trial, 2) very few hearings were conducted, 3) only three depositions were taken, 4) bills for electronic research were excessive, 5) AIG was required to remain in the suit even if Conseco took over the defense, 6) AIG failed to meet its lodestar burden, and 7) Conseco‘s attorneys charged only $38,554.29.
We rеcognize the difference between what AIG claimed and what was awarded is substantial. The district court‘s order, however, indicates it carefully considered the issue and we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion. The court found the attorneys on both sides of the litigation well qualified but was troubled by the striking differences in hourly rates, i.e., AIG‘s lead attorney charged $325-$345 per hour while Conseco‘s attorneys charged only $180 per hour. This difference, combined with the other factors indicating the litigation was not overly time-consuming and AIG was required to remain in the suit, lend credence to the court‘s decision to reduce the claim for fees and costs.
C. Indemnification—Settlement Contribution
AIG also contends the district court erred by refusing to award indemnification for its $5000 contribution to the Haley settlement. We disagree. “Where a claim against an indemnitee has been settled, the burden falls on the indemnitee to prove that the settlement was reasonable.” County of Delaware v. J.P. Mascaro & Sons, Inc., 830 A.2d 587, 593 (Pa. Super. 2003). AIG has рresented no argument or evidence whatsoever showing the payment was reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the district court‘s denial.
III
The order and judgment of the district court are affirmed.
Kelvin D. PEEBLES, Appellant, v. John E. POTTER,1 Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Appellee.
No. 03-1466.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 11, 2003.
Filed: Jan. 8, 2004.