By: Derek Hawkins//September 15, 2017//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Daniel J. Ratajczak, et al. v. Land O’ Lakes, et al.
Case No.: 16-3418
Officials: BAUER, EASTERBROOK, and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges.
Focus: RICO Violation and Choice-of-law Clause
We have three appeals: (1) Land O’Lakes contends that it is entitled to treble damages under RICO and a state-law counterpart (which we do not mention again); (2) the Ratajczaks contend that Packerland’s insurers had to defend and indemnify them in Land O’Lakes’s suit; (3) the Ratajczaks maintain that their own insurer must indemnify them for much of what they paid to Packerland’s buyer in settlement. We tackle the subjects in that order.
The policy provides for the application of New York law. This was a multijurisdictional business transaction. Beazley is based in the United Kingdom. Its adjuster for U.S. claims is located in New York. It is understandable that Beazley prefers to designate one state’s law for all of its business in this nation; it can become familiar with New York law more easily than it can master (and price) the intricacies of many states’ insurance laws. The Ratajczaks are sophisticated business people and entered this transaction with eyes open; they cannot escape the choice-of-law clause in this policy. New York permits insurers to insist on having control of settlements. Vigilant Insurance Co. v. Bear Stearns Cos., 10 N.Y.3d 170, 177–78 (2008). So the Ratajczaks lose for two reasons: the deductible offsets the maximum damages for breach of a general warranty, and they settled without Beazley’s consent. Other arguments have been considered but do not require discussion.
Affirmed