Transcontinental Ins. Co. v. Rainwater Const. Co.

Decision Date05 December 2007
Docket NumberNo. 07-1394.,No. 07-1011.,No. 07-1448.,07-1011.,07-1394.,07-1448.
Citation509 F.3d 454
PartiesTRANSCONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY; Transportation Insurance Company, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. RAINWATER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC; Timothy Rainwater; Arthur D. Rainwater; Rickey J. Kitchen, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

John C. Tollefson, argued, Dallas, TX, (Stephen A. Melendi and Aaron L. Mitchell, Dallas TX, on the brief), for appellant/cross-appellees.

Daniel T. williams, argued, Jonesboro, AR, for appellee/cross-appellants.

Before RILEY, TASHIMA,1 and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

Rainwater Construction Company, LLC (Rainwater) purchased insurance policies from Transcontinental Insurance Company and Transportation Insurance Company, both subsidiaries of CNA Financial Corporation (collectively, CNA). The insurance policies contained a "Named Driver Exclusion Endorsement," which stated that insurance coverage "does not apply to any claims, damages, expenses or `loss' ... arising out of the maintenance, operation or use of any `auto' by [Rickey Joseph Kitchen (Kitchen)]." On October 19, 2005, as Kitchen drove a Rainwater truck and trailer over an overpass, the trailer detached from the truck, crashing into Scottie Lane's (Lane) truck and seriously injuring both Lane and Michael New (New), a passenger in the truck.

Lane, New, and their respective wives filed suit in the Circuit Court of Craighead County, Arkansas, in cause numbers CV-2006-235(DB) and CV-2006-270(JF) (state court actions).2 CNA defended under a reservation of rights and then filed this declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas in case number 3:06-CV-00083-GH (federal court action). In the federal court action, CNA sought a declaratory judgment that Rainwater's insurance policies precluded insurance coverage under the Named Driver Exclusion Endorsement for any judgment against Rainwater in the state court actions. The district court determined that Rainwater's CNA insurance policies provided coverage because the sole proximate cause of the accident was "the improperly attached trailer, not Kitchen's driving." The district court also ordered Rainwater to submit a request for attorney fees pursuant to Arkansas Code section 23-79-209(a).

CNA then accepted the Lanes' and News' policy limits settlement demand of $2 million. The settlement agreement, in letter form, expressly provided:

Transcontinental Insurance Company and Transportation Insurance Company (CNA) accept your clients' joint settlement demand of $2 million dollars, payable to the Lanes and News and their counsel, in exchange for a full release and dismissal with prejudice of all claims against CNA and its insureds, Rainwater Construction Company, LLC, Rickey Kitchen, Sharon Rainwater, Timothy Rainwater, Arthur D. Rainwater, asserted in Cause No. 3:06CV00083GH and in Cause No. CV 2006-235(DB), each party to bear their own costs and fees. Mr. Emerson will draft the formal releases and the dismissal documents in the state case. I will immediately advise the district court that the cases have settled and will file with the Eighth Circuit a motion to vacate and dismiss the federal suit.3

CNA mailed the settlement agreement letter to Rainwater's attorney and provided a signature block for Rainwater's attorney's signature. Rainwater's attorney signed the settlement agreement on behalf of Rainwater. CNA paid the $2 million settlement.

Thereafter, the district court granted Rainwater's attorney fees claim in the amount of $23,667.50. CNA appeals the attorney fees award, arguing (1) the settlement agreement required "each party to bear their own costs and fees," and (2) Rainwater was not entitled to an attorney fees award because the district court erred in interpreting Rainwater's insurance policies. Rainwater cross-appeals the amount of the attorney fees award.

I. DISCUSSION

We review de novo the district court's interpretation of the settlement agreement. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. N. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 109 F.3d 514, 516 (8th Cir.1997). Because the federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Northbrook Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Brewer, 493 U.S. 6, 9, 110 S.Ct. 297, 107 L.Ed.2d 223 (1989), we apply the substantive law of the State of Arkansas, see HOK Sport, Inc. v. FC Des Moines, L.C., 495 F.3d 927, 934 (8th Cir. 2007).

Under Arkansas law, settlement agreements are treated as contracts. See Williams v. Davis, 9 Ark.App. 323, 659 S.W.2d 514, 515 (1983). "[T]he first rule of interpretation of a contract is to give to the language employed the meaning which the parties intended." First Nat'l Bank of Crossett v. Griffin, 310 Ark. 164, 832 S.W.2d 816, 819 (1992). "When contracting parties express their intention in a written instrument in clear and unambiguous language, it is our duty to construe the written agreement according to the plain meaning of the language employed." C. & A. Constr. Co. v. Benning Constr. Co., 256 Ark. 621, 509 S.W.2d 302, 303 (Ark.1974). "To arrive at the intention of the parties to a contract, courts may acquaint themselves with the persons and circumstances and place themselves in the same situation as the parties who made the contract." Schnitt v. McKellar, 244 Ark. 377, 427 S.W.2d 202, 207 (1968).

Rainwater asserts the settlement...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • The Shaw Group, Inc. v. Marcum
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 26 Febrero 2008
    ...diversity case, the parties and the district court have applied the substantive law of Arkansas. See Transcontinental Ins. Co. v. Rainwater Constr. Co., LLC 509 F.3d 454, 456 (8th Cir.2007). Shaw claims the district court erred in denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law. Shaw pre......
  • Cromeans v. Morgan Keegan & Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 12 Junio 2017
    ...of a settlement agreement de novo . United States v. Bailey , 775 F.3d 980, 981 (8th Cir. 2014) ; Transcon. Ins. Co. v. Rainwater Const. Co. , 509 F.3d 454, 456 (8th Cir. 2007). "Interpretation of a release or a settlement agreement is governed by the same principles applicable to any other......
  • HLG Farms Ii, LLC v. City of Hamburg, an Iowa Mun. Corp., 15-1432
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 22 Octubre 2015
    ...reviewing the record and the parties' arguments on appeal, we find no basis for reversal. See Transcon. Ins. Co. v. Rainwater Constr. Co., LLC, 509 F.3d 454, 456 (8th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of district court interpretation of settlement agreement). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R......
1 books & journal articles
  • Just negotiation.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 88 No. 2, January 2011
    • 1 Enero 2011
    ...My analysis relies on rules drawn from all three of these categories. (105.) See, e.g., Transcon. Ins. Co. v. Rainwater Constr. Co., 509 F.3d 454, 456 (8th Cir. 2007) (Arkansas); Perfumebay.com Inc. v. Ebay Inc., 506 F.3d 1165, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2007) (California); Welch & Forbes, Inc. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT