Mortenson v. National Union Fire Insurance Company

249 F.3d 667 (2001)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Mortenson v. National Union Fire Insurance Company

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
249 F.3d 667 (2001)

Facts

Lee Mortenson (plaintiff) was the president of Opelika Manufacturing Company (Opelika). In November 1994, Mortenson learned that Opelika previously failed to pay more than $100,000 in federal payroll taxes that it owed to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Mortenson instructed his financial officers that he did not want Opelika to fail to turn over additional payroll taxes to the IRS, but Mortenson did not discipline the responsible employees or institute corrective measures. To the contrary, Mortenson participated in Opelika’s efforts to delay paying certain creditors. In late 1994 and early 1995, Opelika again failed to pay its payroll taxes to the IRS. In July, pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (code) § 6672(a), which makes one who is responsible for collecting, accounting for, and paying over payroll taxes personally liable for willfully failing to do so, the IRS assessed Mortenson 100 percent of Opelika’s unpaid payroll taxes. Mortenson eventually agreed to pay $900,000 to the IRS. Mortenson then sought reimbursement from the National Union Fire Insurance Company (National Union) (defendant) under an insurance policy that covered Mortenson for losses due to wrongful acts. National Union denied Mortenson’s claim, citing the policy’s exclusion for losses due to “fines or penalties imposed by law” or other matters deemed uninsurable as a matter of public policy. Mortenson sued National Union, arguing that the exclusion was inapplicable because § 6671(a) was not a real penalty due to the IRS’s policy of limiting its § 6672(a) collections to the amount of unpaid payroll taxes. Mortenson further contended that a penalty must punish deliberate wrongdoing, whereas § 6672(a) applied to willful conduct, which purportedly was much less culpable than deliberate wrongdoing.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Posner, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership