State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Jawad Khan

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-3228
___________________________
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jawad Khan
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
Bianca D'Amato
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant
___________________________
No. 25-3229
___________________________
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jawad Khan
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
Audriana Smith
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant

-- 1 of 3 --

____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: June 23, 2026
Filed: June 26, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In these diversity actions, Jawad Khan appeals the district court’s1 adverse
summary judgment decisions as to whether his State Farm Fire and Casualty
Company policies entitled him to a defense and indemnification in two underlying
actions.
After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we
conclude the district court properly granted State Farm’s motions for summary
judgment. See United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Titan Contractors Serv., Inc., 751 F.3d 880,
883 (8th Cir. 2014) (reviewing the grant of summary judgment de novo; applying the
law of the forum in interpreting insurance policy in a diversity action). We conclude
State Farm owed no duty to defend or indemnify Khan, as the underlying claims,
including those for negligent infliction of emotional distress, arose from allegations
that were inextricably linked to excluded intentional acts, rather than covered
accidents. See Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Todd, 547 N.W.2d 696, 699-700 (Minn.
1The Honorable Jerry W. Blackwell, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

1996) (holding that there was no duty to defend claims “inextricably linked” with an
alleged sexual assault under an intentional acts exclusion); see also State Farm Fire
& Cas. Co. v. Sipola, No. A18-0295, 2018 WL 4289014, at **1-3 (Minn. Ct. App.
Sept. 10, 2018) (unpublished) (affirming summary judgment for the insurer on the
duties to defend and indemnify, as the duty to defend depends on the allegations in
the underlying complaint). Because State Farm owed no duty to defend Khan, it also
owed him no indemnification. See Sipola, 2018 WL 4289014, at **2-3.
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --