Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The trust was created by the Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan of a corporation that, from 1965 to 1981, manufactured and sold automotive products containing asbestos. Numerous suits were filed concerning those products. Coverage through one primary insurer has been exhausted; two primary insurers are defending. The trust holds an umbrella insurance policy issued by defendant, which contends that it is not required to defend the claims. The district court agreed and dismissed the trust's complaint. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Although the umbrella policy schedule of primary carriers only lists the policy that has been exhausted, the umbrella policy applies, by its unambiguous terms, the umbrella policy applies only where an occurrence is not covered by the underlying insurance listed in the schedule, "or any other underlying insurance collectible by the insured."

The first plaintiffs alleged that Fidelity failed to provide a discount, required by its filed rates, when issuing title insurance to homeowners who had purchased a title insurance policy for the same property from any other insurer within the previous 10 years. The second plaintiff brought the same claims against First American. The district court denied their motion to certify a class. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Although the claims involve small amounts, so that the plaintiffs are likely unable to recover except by class action, the plaintiffs did not establish that issues subject to generalized proof and applicable to the whole class predominate over issues subject to individualized proof. The need to establish entitlement to join the class and the need to prove individual damages are not fatal to class certification, but the Ohio insurance rate structure would necessitate individual inquiries on the issue of liability. The plaintiffs phrased their claims in a way that would require examination of individual policies and whether the company received the requisite documentation for the discount.

A podiatrist, primarily serving elderly patients, was convicted of healthcare fraud counts that resulted in a loss of $120. The podiatrist was sentenced to 18 months in prison followed by three years of supervision and ordered to pay more than $244,000, based on acquittal counts. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the conviction, but vacated and remanded the sentence. There was sufficient evidence that the podiatrist mailed bills for patients who were not actually treated and for work done by staff no longer employed at the office. Sentencing based on acquittal counts is not unconstitutional if those counts have been established by a preponderance of evidence, but the sentence was unreasonable. Although a court need only make a reasonable estimate of loss, the court relied solely on statistical evidence about loss from up-coding without a sound representative sample. The acquittal counts were part of a broad scheme to defraud and an award of restitution, based on those counts, was proper.