S-18-0583 Henry A. Schulz Irrevocable Trust, et al. (Appellants) v. American International Specialty Lines Ins. Co. (Appellee)
Lancaster County District Court, Judge Lori A. Maret
Attorneys: J.L. Spray & Patricia L. Vannoy (Mattson Ricketts Law Firm) (Appellants) --- J. Scott Paul & Jay D. Koehn (MCGrath North Mullin & Kratz, PC LLO) & Amy Samberg (Pro Hoc Vice) (Foran Glennon Palandech Ponzi & Rudloff, PC) (Appellee)
Civil: Insurance; declaratory judgment
Proceedings below: The district court 1) ruled that Kansas law applied to the insurance policy at issue, 2) granted summary judgment in favor of Appellants “in part,” and denied Appellee’s request for summary judgment on the issue of coverage, 3) granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee on the claim that Appellee acted in bad faith, 4) found that Appellants’ settlement agreement with the insured was unreasonable, 5) declined to order damages in favor of Appellants on the issue of coverage, and 6) entered judgment in favor of Appellee.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in 1) relying on facts not contained in or supported by the record, 2) relying on a fact witness for an “expert” opinion, but failed to consider the actual expert opinions offered, 3) failing to apply the principles of notice pleading, 4) applying only an “eight corners” test to determine coverage, 5) ruling that a portion of the claim was excluded by the “professional services” exclusion, 6) ruling that an insurer cannot commit bad faith unless it has a duty to defend, 7) concluding that Appellee had not duty to defend in this case, 8) ruling that an insurer cannot commit bad faith unless it rejects a settlement offer, 9) concluding that Appellee did not reject a settlement offer in this case, 10) finding that Appellee did not commit bad faith, 11) finding that Appellee is not liable for bad faith because it did not “cause” the excess judgment, 12) unilaterally ruling on the “reasonableness” of the underlying settlement without notice or an opportunity to present evidence, 13) finding that the underlying settlement was unreasonable, and 14) dismissing the case without awarding Appellants any damages.