Mau v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co., No. 17-3392 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of Twin City's cross-motion for summary judgment, finding that Twin City did not owe Robert Mau or EWS a duty to defend under a Twin City insurance policy. Applying North Dakota law, the court held that Twin City owed no duty to defend Mau in his capacity as director and officer of MW because no claims were brought against him in that capacity and, in any event, the dual service exclusion applied. The court also held that Twin City did not owe a duty to defend EWS where the claims against it for breach of contract and fraud are based upon the Asset Purchase Agreement and liability could not have been incurred in absence of the Agreement. Furthermore, even if EWS's arguments had some validity, the contract exclusion would apply to any resulting liability.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Chief Judge Smith and Loken, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - diversity. District court properly granted summary judgment to insurer, concluding Twin City owed no duty to defend Mau in his capacity as director and officer of MW because no claims were brought against him in that capacity and in any event the dual service exclusion applied. Twin City owed no duty to defend EWS because the claims against EWS for breach of contract and fraud are based upon the Agreement and liability could not have been incurred in absence of the Agreement and, in any event, the contract exclusion applied.
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.