Hortica-Florists' Mutual Ins. v. Pittman Nursery Corp., et al., No. 12-1352 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseThis case concerned the struggle for control of a family business, the Pittman Nursery Corporation (PNC). The district court ruled that Hortica, insurer for PNC, had a duty to defend three of the five lawsuits at issue. Pursuant to Ark. Code. Ann. 23-79-209(a), the court reversed the district court's denial of fees and remanded for a hearing to determine the proper amount of fees Hortica must pay to PNC for its defense in the declaratory judgment suit. The court affirmed the district court's grant of Hortica's post-verdict judgment as a matter of law (JAML) motion, grant of pre-verdict JAML on PNC's breach of fiduciary duty and punitive claims, and exclusion of certain evidence.
Court Description: Civil case - Insurance. The insured met Arkansas state law requirements for the reimbursement of its attorneys' fees in connection with its defense of a declaratory judgment action, and the district court erred in failing to award it fees; on remand, the court should determine the proper amount of fees owed the insured for defense of the action; insurer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on on insured's counter-claims for bad faith and negligence; insurer was also entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the insured's breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and punitive damages claims; evidentiary challenges rejected.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.