UnitedHealth Group Inc. v. Executive Risk Specialty Ins., No. 15-1076 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for four insurance companies in an action filed by UnitedHealth, seeking indemnity and defense costs for underlying litigation settlements under its professional liability excess insurance policies. The court held that the district court properly concluded that UnitedHealth failed to present sufficient evidence as to how the settlement should be allocated between covered and non-covered claims; it was not enough under Minnesota law for UnitedHealth to show simply that its $350 million settlement included a covered claim of an unspecified amount; UnitedHealth failed to provide non-speculative evidence to allocate the $350 million settlement between the potentially covered AMA suit and non-covered Malchow suit; and the court declined to disturb the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Insurers on the matter of defense costs in the AMA litigation.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Loken, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Insurance. In action seeking indemnity and defense costs for underlying litigation settlements under professional liability excess insurance policies issued by UnitedHealth, the district court did not err in granting the defendant insurance companies' motion for summary judgment on the ground that UnitedHealth did not present sufficient evidence on how a settlement was allocated between covered and non-covered claims; under Minnesota law, it is not enough for UnitedHealth to simply show that the entire $350 million settlement included a covered claim of an unspecified amount; UnitedHealth bears the burden to allocate the settlement between the potentially covered suit and the non-covered suit with enough specificity to permit a reasoned judgment about liability; UnitedHealth waived its objection to the court's order on defense costs.
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.