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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT