Chicago Ins. Co., et al v. City of Council Bluffs, et al, No. 12-1918 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseIn 2005, Curtis McGhee and another individual brought claims against the City alleging violations of civil rights sounding in malicious prosecution. The City sought coverage under insurance policies issued by CIC and Columbia. On appeal, the City and McGhee challenged the district court's order granting summary judgment to CIC and Columbia, on CIC's and Columbia's declaratory judgment claims concerning coverage under the various insurance policies. The court concluded that the district court correctly refused to consider and correctly denied additional discovery of extrinsic evidence. The court also concluded that the alleged malicious prosecution and resulting personal injuries occurred when the underlying charges were filed against McGhee in 1977. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment that the following policies did not afford coverage to the City for the malicious prosecution claims: the two excess liability policies issued by CIC; four of the special excess liability policies issued by Columbia; and the commercial umbrella liability policy issued by Columbia. As to the 1977-78 special excess liability policy issued by Columbia, the court reversed the district court's judgment regarding the applicability of the reasonable expectations doctrine. The court remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Civil case - Insurance. For a statement of facts in the case, see Genesis Insurance Co. v. City of Council Bluffs, 677 F.3d. 806 (8th Cir. 2012). In a declaratory judgment action to determine coverage under various insurance policies issued to the city, the district court did not err in rejecting the City's request to consider extrinsic evidence regarding the parties' intent or in denying the City's request for additional discovery on extrinsic evidence; in Genesis, the court determined that for purposes of a malicious prosecution action, the arrested persons' injuries occurred when they were prosecuted and were not a continuing injury; as a result, the policies, with one exception, were not in effect when the arrested persons' injuries occurred; with respect to that policy, which was in effect from August, 1977 to August 1978, when the charges were filed in the arrested persons' criminal prosecution, the City was entitled to coverage under the "reasonable expectations" doctrine. Judge Bye, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
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.