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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT