United States Liability Insurance Company v. Stone County Insurance Agency Inc Defendant Ase Gro Lindland; Olav Lindland

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1699
___________________________
United States Liability Insurance Company
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Stone County Insurance Agency Inc
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant
Ase Gro Lindland; Olav Lindland
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellants
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________
Submitted: May 6, 2026
Filed: May 11, 2026
[Unpublished]
___________
Before GRUENDER, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________

-- 1 of 2 --

PER CURIAM.
In this diversity action, Ase Gro and Olav Lindland (the Lindlands) appeal the
district court’s1 adverse decisions on cross motions for summary judgment as to
whether U.S. Liability Insurance Company (USLI) had a duty to indemnify its insured
against an Arkansas consent judgment in favor of the Lindlands.
After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we
conclude that the district court properly granted USLI’s motion for summary
judgment and denied the Lindlands’. See United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Titan
Contractors Serv., Inc., 751 F.3d 880, 886-87 (8th Cir. 2014) (de novo standard of
review). Because the insured’s liability had a causal relation to its failure to pay
money on behalf of the Lindlands, we conclude indemnification was unavailable
under the unambiguous language of USLI’s policy, which excluded coverage for
claims “arising out of” or “in any way involving” the failure to pay any money. See
Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Dooms, 617 F. Supp. 3d 980, 990 (W.D. Ark. 2022)
(discussing Arkansas law; an insurer has a duty to indemnify if the actual facts giving
rise to liability in the underlying suit show that coverage applies); Scottsdale Ins. Co.
v. Morrowland Valley Co., 411 S.W.3d 194, 191 (Ark. 2012) (concluding that, when
unambiguous, policy exclusions are generally enforced according to their terms);
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 574 S.W.2d 265, 267 (Ark.
1978) (holding in an unambiguous context that the phrase “arising out of” required
only “a causal relation or connection”).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
1The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --