ILNews

Insurer not entitled to rescind home insurance policy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The failure to disclose true value in a real estate insurance context doesn’t give rise to a rescission claim, the Indiana Court of Appeals held in a case of first impression.

In Jerry French, et al. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, No. 18A02-1005-PL-489, both parties appealed the denial of their motions for summary judgment in a dispute over whether State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. would have to pay for the Frenches’ stick-built home under the insurance policy that covers the “reasonable and necessary cost” of replacing their home with one of “similar construction” after their manufactured home burned.

When Jerry French obtained insurance on the manufactured home, the independent insurance agent never asked if the home was manufactured or how much the home cost. The agent assumed it was a stick-built home because French said the home was “under construction.” The replacement cost of the home under the policy was $173,200; the Frenches’ manufactured home cost nearly $77,000.

The home was destroyed by a fire and the Frenches decided to build a stick-built home on the site at a cost of more than $180,000. State Farm only offered to pay the cost of replacing the manufactured home with the same model. The Frenches sued for breach of insurance policy, and the trial court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment.

The appellate judges found the policy was ambiguous when it came to the use of the terms “similar construction” and “reasonable and necessary cost,” and affirmed the denial of summary judgment for both parties on the question of whether the policy terms covered the cost of replacing the manufactured home with a stick-built one.

State Farm argued that it’s entitled to reformation of the policy based on a mutual mistake of fact, and rescission of the policy based on concealment of material facts by the Frenches. On the reformation issue, the judges remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor the Frenches, because there’s no evidence that the Frenches were mistaken regarding the true value or nature of the manufactured home. Regarding the rescission of the insurance contract based on the concealment of the purchase price, or the fact it was a manufactured home, the judges noted that no Indiana case has squarely addressed the question of whether failure to disclose a material fact leads to the same result as a misrepresentation.

The appellate court looked at foreign cases involving the failure to disclose the value of insured real estate and cases involving the failure to disclose the value of insured property. In the real estate cases, those courts held that failure to disclose true value in a real estate insurance context doesn’t give rise to a rescission claim. Courts have held that not disclosing the value of insured property – such as art objects – is grounds for voiding the policy.

Judge Cale Bradford pointed out that in the real estate cases, the insurance company didn’t inspect the property in question before issuing coverage, which is what happened in the instant case.  

“… it would have been a simple matter for a State Farm agent to visit the Frenches’ home, at which point it would have been immediately apparent that it was a manufactured home, even without going inside. In contrast, the true value of personal property, such as an art collection, would be much more difficult for the insurer to ascertain,” he wrote. “We do not think it is an unreasonable rule that insurance companies fail to ascertain the true value of insured real property at their peril, as they are in a far better position to accurately ascertain that value than most homeowners.”

The judges ordered summary judgment be entered in favor of the Frenches on this claim. They also denied awarding attorney fees and prejudgment interest to the Frenches. At trial, they may argue that additional living expenses pursuant to their insurance policy were reasonable and necessary costs of replacing their original home with one of similar construction.

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT