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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT