EMC Insurance v. Entergy Arkansas, No. 18-2327 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
After a fire seriously damaged the insureds' home, the insurer paid for their total property damage and then brought a diversity action against Entergy, alleging that the utility's equipment caused the fire. The insurer alleged subrogation claims for damages in excess of the amount paid for the damage.
Although the district court erred in determining that the insurer did not have standing, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of Entergy's motion for judgment as a matter of law because the insurer failed to prove that the insureds were made whole either before or during this lawsuit. Therefore, a reasonable jury could not have found that the insurer proved an essential element of its subrogation claim.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Grasz and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Insurance. In this action by an insurer asserting subrogation claims against a utility alleging the utility's equipment caused a fire at the insured parties' property,the district court erred in determining the insurer did not have standing to bring the claim without first obtaining the insureds' agreement or a court determination that the insured had been made whole; however, the district court properly granted defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law, as the insurer never argued to the district court that it had presented adequate proof before or during trial that the insureds had been made whole, an essential element of the claim on which the insurer bears the burden of proof.
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.