ILNews

Justices rule in favor of insurer in dispute over canceled policy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for American Family Insurance in a lawsuit filed by a couple after the insurer denied coverage for a 2003 fire at their home and voided the insurance policy from its beginning.

In Michael Dodd and Katherine Dodd v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, 12S02-1203-CT-170, Michael and Katherine Dodd filed a claim with American Family after their garage was destroyed by a fire in 2003. Michael Dodd did not disclose in his application with American Family in 1998 that his then-fiancée Katherine’s home, where he lived, was destroyed in a fire earlier that year. Michael and Katherine Dodd didn’t marry until 2000, but they lived together when he applied for the policy.

In investigating the 2003 fire, Michael Dodd told American Family about the 1998 fire. The company treated it as a misrepresentation, voided the insurance policy ab initio and denied the Dodds' claim for the 2003 fire.

The couple sued for breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court ruled in favor of American Family. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed in part and ordered more proceedings on the breach of contract claim.

The justices upheld the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to American Family, rejecting the Dodds’ argument that American Family couldn’t void or rescind the policy because it hadn’t first returned all paid premium amounts to them. They didn’t make that argument in response to the insurer’s motion for summary judgment and the issue wasn’t before the trial court, Chief Justice Brent Dickson wrote.

But even if the Dodds had made the argument before the lower court, an exception to this requirement has been met where an insurer doesn’t have to tender a return of premiums to rescind a contract when the insurer has paid a claim which is greater in amount than the premiums paid.

The Dodds received $5,500 from American family for hail damage, more than twice the amount of the premiums they paid.

The justices ordered the trial court to release and return the tender of premiums to American Family, which the trial court was holding until the conclusion of the Dodds’ appeal.

 

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. by the time anybody gets to such files they will probably have been totally vacuumed anyways. they're pros at this at universities. anything to protect their incomes. Still, a laudable attempt. Let's go for throat though: how about the idea of unionizing football college football players so they can get a fair shake for their work? then if one of the players is a pain in the neck cut them loose instead of protecting them. if that kills the big programs, great, what do they have to do with learning anyways? nada. just another way for universities to rake in the billions even as they skate from paying taxes with their bogus "nonprofit" status.

  2. Um the affidavit from the lawyer is admissible, competent evidence of reasonableness itself. And anybody who had done law work in small claims court would not have blinked at that modest fee. Where do judges come up with this stuff? Somebody is showing a lack of experience and it wasn't the lawyers

  3. My children were taken away a year ago due to drugs, and u struggled to get things on track, and now that I have been passing drug screens for almost 6 months now and not missing visits they have already filed to take my rights away. I need help.....I can't loose my babies. Plz feel free to call if u can help. Sarah at 765-865-7589

  4. Females now rule over every appellate court in Indiana, and from the federal southern district, as well as at the head of many judicial agencies. Give me a break, ladies! Can we men organize guy-only clubs to tell our sob stories about being too sexy for our shirts and not being picked for appellate court openings? Nope, that would be sexist! Ah modernity, such a ball of confusion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmRsWdK0PRI

  5. LOL thanks Jennifer, thanks to me for reading, but not reading closely enough! I thought about it after posting and realized such is just what was reported. My bad. NOW ... how about reporting who the attorneys were raking in the Purdue alum dollars?

ADVERTISEMENT