Obenauer v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 July 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-5408ND,89-5408ND |
| Citation | 908 F.2d 316 |
| Parties | Edward OBENAUER, Appellant, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Gary Hamblet, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Mitchell Mahoney, Minot, N.D., for appellee.
Before FAGG, Circuit Judge, BRIGHT, and HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judges.
The district court granted summary judgment to Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty) after Edward Obenauer brought this product liability action against Liberty. Obenauer appeals, and we affirm.
Edward Obenauer severely injured his right hand while operating a baling machine designed by Vermeer Manufacturing Company (Vermeer). At the time Vermeer designed the baler, Liberty provided Vermeer with insurance and accident prevention services. Obenauer claims that because Liberty regularly inspected the baler and provided design advice to Vermeer, Liberty is liable to Obenauer for his injuries.
The courts of North Dakota have never decided the question of whether an insurer that provides accident protection services is liable to third parties, and the district court thus adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 324A (1965) as North Dakota law. See Patch v. Sebelius, 349 N.W.2d 637, 642 (N.D.1984) (). Neither Obenauer nor Liberty disputes the district court's choice of section 324A, and we defer to the District Court of North Dakota when it decides a question of state law that North Dakota state courts have not yet addressed. Kloster Co. v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co., 882 F.2d 1308, 1310 (8th Cir.1989).
Instead, Obenauer asserts the district court committed error in its application of section 324A. The district court held Liberty's inspections did not replace Vermeer's duty to Obenauer to design a safe product and did not constitute an "undertaking" under section 324A. Other courts have decided the question of insurer liability similarly. See, e.g., Davis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 525 F.2d 1204, 1207-08 (5th Cir.1976); Rick v. RLC Corp., 535 F.Supp. 39, 46-47 (E.D.Mich.1981); Smith v. Allendale Mut. Ins. Co., 303 N.W.2d 702, 710-12 (Mich.1981). Because the district court's interpretation of Restatement Sec. 324A is not " 'fundamentally deficient in analysis or otherwise lacking in reasoned authority,' " Turley Martin Co. v. Gilman Paper Co., 905 F.2d 235, 238 (8th Cir.1990) (quoting Pershern v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bjerke v. Johnson
...324A liability where an insurance company's inspections "did not replace" a manufacturer's duty to "design a safe product." 908 F.2d 316, 317 (8th Cir.1990) (emphasis added). Likewise, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, applying Georgia law, ruled that for liabilit......
-
Corporation-South v. Hinojosa
...subsume or supplant the duty of the other party in order to incur liability for nonperformance of that duty”); Obenauer v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 908 F.2d 316, 317 (8th Cir.1990) (concluding that an insurer providing safety services to a manufacturer was not liable under Section 324A to the......
-
Knife River Corp.-S. v. Hinojosa
...subsume or supplant the duty of the other party in order to incur liability for nonperformance of that duty"); Obenauer v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 908 F.2d 316, 317 (8th Cir. 1990) (concluding that an insurer providing safety services to a manufacturer was not liable under Section 324A to th......
-
Padilla v. Hunter Douglas Window Coverings, Inc., Case No. 09 CV 1222
...undertake a duty "in lieu of, rather than a supplement to" the original party's duty. Id. at 1156-57. See also Obenauer v. Liberty Mat. Ins. Co., 908 F.2d 316, 317 (8th Cir. 1990) (concluding that an insurer providing safety services to a manufacturer was not liable under Section 324A to th......