ILNews

Estate entitled to hearing on cause of fire

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A plaintiff is entitled to a hearing on whether vandalism caused the fire at an unoccupied home, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today. The District Court never made a finding on the investigation that indicated it may have been burglars who started the fire.

In the Estate of Wavie Luster v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 09-2483, Rick Gikas, personal representative of the estate, appealed summary judgment for the insurance company on his breach of insurance contract suit. Allstate insured Wavie Luster's home. The widow was injured in a fall and moved into an extended-care facility in October 2001. Gikas became her power of attorney and told the insurer to bill the premiums to his law office. She never returned the house and died nearly five years later. Three months after her death, a fire caused extensive damage to the unoccupied house. Gikas submitted a claim on behalf of the estate. Allstate then discovered the home had been empty that entire time and denied the claim. Allstate continued to bill Gikas, and Gikas paid claims for two more years after the fire until Allstate cancelled the policy retroactively to November 2001 and returned the premiums paid since then.

Part of the policy says there's no coverage for any loss consisting of or caused by any substantial change or increase in hazard, if it's within the control of the insured; and there's no coverage for loss caused by vandalism if the dwelling is vacant or unoccupied for more than 30 consecutive days immediately prior to the vandalism. The policy also requires an insured to notify the company of any change in occupancy in the dwelling.

The District judge ruled the duty of notification had been breached but based his grant of summary judgment on the increase in hazard portion of the policy by leaving the house unoccupied.

Based on Allstate's policy terms, if a homeowner went on a 31-day trip and a fire occurred during that time, the insured wouldn't be covered. It implies if you are away a lot, your coverage lapses. There is also the chance a homeowner put in special precautions to keep the house safe while away.

"There is no rule that moving out of a house per se increases the hazards against which the insurance company has insured you," wrote Judge Richard Posner.

Gikas is entitled to a remand because it's unknown whether vandalism caused the loss. Allstate is also entitled to a hearing on the applicability of the vandalism exception should the hazard exclusion be found inapplicable.

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT