ILNews

7th Circuit affirms District Court in attorney house fire case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favor of an insurer because an attorney and his wife failed to produce documents the company requested repeatedly.

In Harry Foster III and Linda Foster v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, No. 11-3100, Harry and Linda Foster, their two children, Harry’s father and the family’s eight dogs were away when a fire severely damaged the family’s home on Jan. 3, 2009. Linda Foster submitted a claim to State Farm the next day under the family’s homeowners’ policy.

The insurer learned that the Fosters had at least two businesses, held numerous business and personal accounts, and were involved in multiple lawsuits. State Farm promptly requested documents including blueprints, utility bills and receipts. The insurer sent a letter to the Fosters at the end of January, reminding them of their obligation to submit requested documents, and did so again in March.

By mid-March, State Farm’s fire investigator concluded the fire was set intentionally and referred the claim to its Special Investigative Unit.

The Fosters’ deadline to submit proof of loss was May 2, 2009, but they requested a 60-day extension, which State Farm granted. A few days later, the Fosters asked for more time and State Farm again extended the deadline. On Aug. 5, the couple submitted nearly 1,000 pages of documents.   

On Aug. 13 and 15, Harry Foster sat for his examination under oath; Linda Foster’s EUO was on Aug. 26. Based on statements the couple made about previously undisclosed bank accounts and business dealings, State Farm requested additional documents, dating back to 2002.

Citing Morris v. Economy Fire & Cas. Co., 848 N.E.2d 663 (Ind. 2006), the 7th Circuit wrote that the Fosters’ duty was not only to give State Farm documents they possessed, but to acquire and deliver other documents related to their financial condition.

“As a matter of law, the Fosters’ failure to produce requested documents or even explain why they could not, and their related failure to complete Mrs. Foster’s EUO, materially breached the contract,” Judge John Tinder wrote on behalf of the circuit court.
 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT