ILNews

COA adopts common-sense rule on providing insurance policies

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has adopted a common-sense rule many other courts throughout the country have implemented, in requiring insurers to provide copies of their insurance policies to the insured if they ask for one following a loss.

If that doesn’t happen, the state’s intermediate appellate court holds that the insurer would then be banned from arguing in subsequent litigation that a policy holder didn’t comply with all the terms and couldn’t receive coverage.

The ruling comes today in Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Gary Hughes, 18A02-1006-PL-659, a case out of Delaware Circuit Court where Judge John Feick had denied a summary judgment from Auto-Owners Insurance that a home fire insurance coverage suit was barred by a one-year statute of limitations.

An arson fire in March 2002 destroyed Gary Hughes’ home in Eaton, and part of his insurance policy with Auto-Owners said that the company couldn’t be sued unless there’s full compliance with all of the policy terms and that the suit must be filed within a year of the loss or damage. Hughes hired a public adjuster as his agent and 11 months later, Auto-Owners denied the claim due to “arson, fraud, misrepresentation, false swearing, and lack of determination of ownership or an insurable interest.” Hughes filed a breach of contract and breach of duty suit in May 2003, 14 months following the loss.

The insurance company argued that Hughes’ suit should be barred because it wasn’t filed within a year, but the trial court twice denied summary judgment motions. The court ruled in favor of Auto-Owners on the punitive damage claim but denied the bad faith claim and one-year limitation defense, and a jury awarded Hughes $166,792.83 in damages.

One of the issues on appeal became whether Hughes had received a copy of his insurance policy following the loss, as he claimed to have requested. He argued that Auto-Owners shouldn’t be able to raise that claim, as it didn’t provide him with a copy, while the insurance company contended it had supplied him with one.

Specifically, the appellate panel found that the principles of equity and fairness create a limited duty to provide a copy of an insurance policy when the insured has requested one, and that failure to discharge that duty would prevent an insurer from asserting noncompliance with policy terms. Citing caselaw from Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin, the Hoosier appellate panel adopted that rule as its own.

“We think that this rule reflects the realities of the typical relationship between an insurance company and an insured, at least when the insured is a private individual,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote. “Very few insureds will ever read, much less attempt to understand, their insurance policies, unless of course they happen to suffer a loss. We also venture to guess that very few homeowners will ever take the precaution of storing a copy of their policy at a secure location outside of the home, making it that much more likely that a copy will be destroyed in a loss and not be available when needed most.”

But even with that holding, Hughes lost because the case record proved that Auto-Owners had supplied him with a copy of his policy within a month of his loss in March 2002. Therefore, Auto-Owners should have been able to raise the one-year limitation argument and should have prevailed on that point, the appellate court ruled.

The case was reversed and remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners.

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