St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. Microsoft Corporation

220 F.3d 943, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 17428, 2000 WL 994313
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJuly 20, 2000
Docket99-3507
StatusPublished

This text of 220 F.3d 943 (St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. Microsoft Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. Microsoft Corporation, 220 F.3d 943, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 17428, 2000 WL 994313 (8th Cir. 2000).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (“St. Paul Fire”) brought an action against Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) in federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment defining its obligation to defend or indemnify Microsoft under its policy insuring the Defendant.

In this action for declaratory judgment St. Paul Fire asserts that the plaintiffs in two class actions against Microsoft do not seek consequential damages, the only damages that are covered by the policy, according to St. Paul Fire. The two lawsuits on which St. Paul Fire has refused to defend or indemnify Microsoft are Michael H. Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Microsoft Corp., (Mobile County Ct., Ala.); and Mark Manning, Steve Collins and Dana Schnitzer, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Microsoft Corp., (Dist. Ct. of Harrison County, Tex.). Each action alleges that a putative plaintiff class suffered damage when they “purchased, licensed or otherwise acquired” Microsoft’s DOS 6.0 software.

The district court considered the issues on a motion for summary judgment relating to the Miller and Manning class actions and granted the motion for summary judgment. The court stated, “The explicit enumeration of the damages sought [in the lawsuits] leads to the conclusion that all other kinds of damages are excluded. Since all of the damages enumerated are direct, rather than consequential, the petitions do not state a claim for consequential damages.” Appellant’s Add. at 15. Accordingly, the district court entered a summary judgment order as follows:

The Court hereby declares that plaintiff is not obligated to defend or indem *944 nify defendant under Policy No. 696NK6427 against claims asserted in the action filed in the District Court of Harrison County, Texas, entitled, Mark Manning, Steve Collins and Dana Schnitzer, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Microsoft Corporation.
The Court hereby declares that plaintiff is not obligated to defend or indemnify defendant under Policy No. 696NK6427 against claims asserted in the action filed in Mobile County Court, Alabama, entitled, Michael H. Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Microsoft Corporation.

Id., at 18.

We have carefully considered the briefs, the record, and the oral argument of the parties. We conclude that the district court opinion by the Honorable John R. Tunheim fully and fairly discusses the issues and reaches the correct result in this case.

Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the district court opinion, St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Microsoft Corp., 102 F.Supp.2d 1107 (D.Mmn.1999).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Microsoft Corp.
102 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (D. Minnesota, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
220 F.3d 943, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 17428, 2000 WL 994313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-paul-fire-and-marine-insurance-company-v-microsoft-corporation-ca8-2000.