Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
In an insurance liability dispute, district court judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the court did not err in finding that an insurance agent did not have any special or expanded agreement with defendant which would have transformed the general duty into an expanded duty; 2) the court properly found that Kansas's Valued Property Law does not apply and that plaintiff's liability was not limited to the valuation sheet value; 3) the coinsurance provision of the policy did not since the Valued Policy Law did not apply; 4) the policy provisions that limit coverage for the cost of repair or replacement in order to comply with an ordinance were in violation of Kansas public policy and not enforceable; 5) Missouri's vexatious refusal to pay statute did not apply as Kansas law governs the dispute; and 6) Kansas law concerning award of attorneys' fees applies if the insured obtains a judgment in excess of the amount the insurer tendered.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
Submitted: December 10, 2008
Filed: July 14, 2009
Before MELLOY, BENTON, and DOTY Circuit Judges.
Opinion by BENTON, Circuit Judge.