Kilcher, et al. v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 13-1986 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseContinental appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs. The district court determined that plaintiffs' had made more than one claim against their former financial advisor. The financial advisor was insured by Continental under a professional liability insurance policy. Therefore, the district court held that the insurance policy's coverage limit for a single claim did not apply and that plaintiffs' claims triggered the insurance policy's aggregate coverage limit. The court concluded that, although the financial advisor made different alleged misstatements, omissions, and promises on different dates to each plaintiff, there nonetheless existed a logical connection between her wrongful acts. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded to the district court for entry of judgment in favor of Continental.
Court Description: Civil case - Insurance. The district court erred in finding that plaintiffs' claims triggered the insurance policy's aggregate coverage limit of $2 million as under the plain language of the policy's provision on "Interrelated Wrongful Acts," the insured's wrongful acts involving misstatements, omissions and promises to each of the four plaintiffs were logically connected and, therefore, a single act for coverage purposes.
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.