ILNews

Opinion regarding insurance company considers definition of ‘ever’

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana Court of Appeals panel was split in an opinion released today that considered the definition of “ever” on a home insurance application when it came to whether the homeowners insurance coverage was ever “declined, cancelled, or non-renewed.”

While the majority opinion found that “ever” should include all insurers who may have cancelled the plaintiffs’ coverage, a dissenting judge wrote that in this case, “ever” should have only included the cancellations by the defendant insurance company.

In Allied Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Linda Good and Randall Good, No. 85A04-0905-CV-240, Linda and Randall Good had a fire March 16, 2003, that destroyed their home and all of its contents.

Only Linda’s name was on the policy she had with the insurance company. The policy was to last one year, beginning July 2, 2002. The insurance company had neither denied nor paid their claims regarding the fire pending an ongoing investigation concerning the fire’s cause. Linda sued March 9, 2004, for breach of contract based on the non-payment of the claim.

Two trials took place. The first trial was in December 2008, which ended in a mistrial. The second trial in January 2009 was bifurcated to address Linda’s breach of contract claim, to address Allied’s third-party claims against Randall that he made false statements about the fire, and to address Allied’s counterclaims against Linda.

Among Allied’s counterclaims were that Linda misrepresented her insurance cancellation history on the application. If the insurance company had known her true cancellation history, Allied claimed, the company would have either denied her coverage or required a higher premium for the coverage.

After hearing the evidence in the January 2009 trial, the court entered a directed verdict for the Goods. The jury awarded slightly more than $1 million in damages to Linda.

However, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court, finding that because Linda acknowledged that at least one and possibly three insurance companies had cancelled policies held by Linda and Randall, she had indeed misrepresented her cancellation history on the application when she claimed she was never denied coverage.

Linda claimed that because the way the form was worded, she interpreted it to mean whether she was ever denied coverage by Allied, and therefore didn’t include her cancellations from other insurance companies.

The Court of Appeals found that this misrepresentation was material in this case.

“A misrepresentation on an application for an insurance policy is ‘material’ if the fact misrepresented, had it been known to the insurer, would have reasonably entered into and influenced the insurer‘s decision whether to issue a policy or to charge a higher premium,” wrote Judge Melissa S. May for the majority.

However, in a footnote the court clarified this definition by adding, “Our opinion … should not, and cannot, be read to encourage, or even permit, parties to comb through insurance applications in hopes of finding any false statement in an effort to reduce premiums or avoid paying benefits. Only a ‘material’ false representation could permit either result.”

Because of these findings, Judge May wrote, “the trial court erred by denying Allied’s motion for summary judgment. We reverse and remand for entry of judgment for Allied on all counts.”

However, while Judge Michael P. Barnes concurred, Judge L. Mark Bailey wrote a 9-page dissent.

Including an image of the application field in question, he wrote the application field about past insurance cancellations was unclear as to whether “ever” included all insurance companies or just Allied.

“Taking ‘ever’ out of its context seems to me to disregard how a reasonable person could construe the question,” he wrote. “Reading the form as presented above, a reasonable person could indeed interpret the item about prior cancellations as pertaining to the current insurer – particularly since the section heading is ‘INSURANCE COVERAGE,’ not ‘Prior Insurance Coverage,’ ‘Coverage History,’ or the like.”
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT