Burris v. Gulf Underwriters Ins. Co., No. 14-2498 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseAfter plaintiff was severely injured from falling off a ladder, he brought claims in state court against the ladder's manufacturers (Versa) and the seller of the ladder (Menard). Gulf, Versa's former insurance company, subsequently moved to intervene in the products liability action. Plaintiff and Versa then entered into an agreement in which Versa admitted liability and permitted plaintiff to seek recovery from Gulf. After trial, the jury returned a verdict for Gulf and plaintiff moved for a new trial, or in the alternative, reconsideration of his motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting plaintiff's requested spoliation instruction where defendant's destruction of claim files and records was insufficient to show that the files had been destroyed in anticipation of litigation; given that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant a spoliation instruction, and did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of plaintiff's lawyer's disciplinary history, a new trial is not required to prevent a miscarriage of justice; and the court did not review the district court's denial of the motion for summary judgment after the trial on the merits, because plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of whether Versa received the March 2003 letter at issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Beam, Author, with Wollman and Loken, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Insurance. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see Gulf v. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Burris, 674 F.3d 999 (8th Cir. 2012). In an action seeking coverage where the issue was whether the insurer received the notice of the claim on a timely basis, plaintiff was not entitled to a spoilation instruction based on defendant's destruction of certain files as the evidence was insufficient to show the evidence was destroyed to suppress the truth concerning plaintiff's claim; in any event, defendant had no involvement in the destruction of the documents and did not have any access or control over the destroyed files; evidence concerning disciplinary proceedings against plaintiff's lawyer regarding his failure to file before the statute of limitations ran in an unrelated case was relevant as one of the issues at trial was whether counsel's office practices were so reliable that the notice could be presumed to have been mailed.
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.