Sampson v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., No. 17-1104 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs, holding that St. Paul Insurance's policy expressly precluded indemnification of intentional criminal acts and that David Kofoed's act of evidence tampering did not fall within the malicious prosecution exception. Kofoed was criminally convicted for evidence tampering while investigating two murders and eventually charging plaintiffs with the murders.
The court held that St. Paul's policy coverage was not illusory where it excluded coverage for acts with specific intent, but did not cover general intent acts; the policy did not provide some exceptions to the exclusions to cover certain intentional acts such as malicious prosecution; and Kofoed's evidence-tampering crime was analogous to civil malicious prosecution. Because plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead the malicious prosecution cause of action in their complaints, the district court's entry of default judgment against Kofoed did not include malicious prosecution. Because Kofoed's judgment did not include malicious prosecution, plaintiffs failed in their burden to show that an exception to the insurance exclusion applied. Therefore, St. Paul had no duty to indemnify Kofoed.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Murphy and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Insurance. For a related case, see Livers v. Schenck, 700 F.3d 340 (8th Cir. 2012) which sets out the facts regarding the wrongful filing of murder charges against the plaintiffs and the misconduct of Douglas County Police Commander Kofoed. After settling with the other defendants in that matter, the plaintiffs recovered substantial damages against Koefoed for tampering with the evidence which led to the charges, and they initiated garnishment proceedings against St. Paul, Douglas County's insurer for its law enforcement officers. The district court found Kofoed's act, while criminal, was covered under the policy's malicious prosecution exception and that the company had a duty to indemnify Kofoed for both compensatory and punitive damages, as well as plaintiffs' attorneys' fees awards. Held, the district court erred in finding Kofoed's crime of evidence tampering was covered because it is analagous to civil malicious prosecution; because plaintiffs' underlying action failed to plead malicious prosecution, the district court's entry of a default judgment against Kefoed did not include a judgment for malicious prosecution, and the insurer had no duty to indemnify Kofoed on plaintiffs' judgment.
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.