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

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 grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  2. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  3. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  4. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  5. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

ADVERTISEMENT