Dziadek v. The Charter Oak Fire Ins., No. 16-4070 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseAfter a jury found that Charter Oak was liable for breach of contract and deceit for its handling of plaintiff's underinsured motorist (UIM) claim, the district court partly granted judgment as a matter of law and approved some of the compensatory damages, as well as all of the punitive damages. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the independent duty rule did not bar plaintiff's deceit claim; there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that there was deceit and the deceit harmed plaintiff; the evidence supported the jury's finding that Charter Oak's breach of contract prevented plaintiff from submitting her UIM claim sooner and award of interest on UIM monies from the delay; the district court did not err by failing to conform plaintiff's pleadings, and properly nullified the award for mental and emotional harm; the district court properly applied South Dakota law and applied a 15% interest rate on the $900,000 payment of the UIM claim; and the evidence supported the award of punitive damages and the award was not excessive.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Wollman and Riley, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Insurance. Plaintiff's deceit claim against the insurer was not barred by the "independent duty rule;" there was sufficient evidence of deceit to support plaintiff's jury verdict and establish that she was injured by the deceit; the evidence supported the jury's finding that defendant's breach of contract prevented plaintiff from submitting her uninsured motorist claim sooner and that she was damaged by the delay; district court's nullification of the jury's $500,000 award for mental and emotional harm from the deceit claim affirmed in light of South Dakota case law which denies emotional-distress damages on a fraud claim where the plaintiff fails to prove either intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress; no error in applying the interest rate set out in South Dakota Code Sec. 21-1-13.1; award of punitive damages affirmed as it was supported by the evidence and is not excessive under either South Dakota law or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [ August 14, 2017
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.