Hiltner v. Owners Insurance Co., No. 18-2624 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff filed suit against Owners, which had issued an insurance plan to her father, for underinsured motorist benefits. On Owner's first appeal, the Eighth Circuit held that the district court improperly applied a heightened duty of care to the driver of the vehicle as the designated driver. On remand, the district court stated that it was not applying a heightened standard and did not alter the fault allocation.
After careful review, the court was not satisfied that the order on remand eliminated the legal error that this court identified in the original conclusions of law. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded for new findings and conclusions on the allocation of fault. The district judge is no longer in service in the district court and thus the chief judge of the district court should reassign this case for further proceedings.
Court Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Wollman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Insurance. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see Hiltner v. Owners Ins. Co., 869 F. 3d 699 (8th Cir. 2017). In the prior appeal this court vacated the district court's judgment, finding the district court had improperly applied a heightened duty of care to the driver of the vehicle in which plaintiff was riding because the driver was the sober designated driver; on remand, the district court stated its decision on fault was not based on the driver's status as the sober designated driver; however, the court found the driver's fault was greater than any of her passengers' because, among other factors, she was the only sober person in the group and had the greatest ability to assess the danger; the unstated assumption and burden in this analysis is that the driver had the greater ability because she was sober; given this analysis, and the court's decision on remand which made no change to the allocation of fault that was originally tied to the driver's status as the designated driver, the court is not satisfied that the order on remand eliminated the legal error this court identified in its prior opinion; vacated and remanded for new findings and conclusions of law on the allocation of fault. Judge Wollman, dissenting.
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.