ILNews

Seeking an exclusion for innocent co-insured

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A LaPorte County woman who lost her home to a fire, allegedly started by her estranged husband, is at the center of a legal dispute with her insurance company that could set precedent in Indiana caselaw.

The case focuses on the issue of excluding so-called “innocent co-insureds” from coverage after intentional acts. Insurance companies have traditionally denied claims when a fire was set by only one party listed on the joint policy.

il-insurance03-15col.jpg Ice Miller LLP attorneys (from left) Elizabeth Timme, Sarah Murray and Angela Krahulik are working pro bono to help a LaPorte County woman left homeless by a house fire.(IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

However, a trend has been emerging nationally, according to an article in Property Casualty 360. Increasingly, courts have been holding that the language of “any insured” or “an insured” included in many homeowners’ policies does not enable insurance providers to bar innocent co-insureds from coverage.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Massachusetts and Michigan are some of the states where courts have struck down the coverage denials, finding the intentional act exclusion was invalid.

Gwendolen Womack, a LaPorte County resident, was denied coverage under her policy’s intentional act exclusion clause. Although her husband, Robert, has been charged with setting the house on fire and remains in jail, Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Co. did not honor her claim because the loss was caused by one of the insured individuals.

A trio of attorneys from Ice Miller LLP has taken Womack as a pro bono client. They counter that by having her claim refused, Womack, a survivor of domestic violence, is continuing to be victimized. They have filed a complaint in LaPorte Superior Court against Allstate, asking for unspecified declaratory relief, damages and costs arising from the house fire and denial of coverage.

Indiana courts have ruled for innocent co-insureds in past cases, namely American Economy Ins. Co. v. Liggett, 426 N.E.2d 136 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981), and Fuston v. National Mutual Ins. Co., 440 N.E.2d 751 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982). However, the state’s judiciary is believed to have never addressed separating co-insureds in cases of domestic violence.

“This is an opportunity to set a good precedent and to make some pretty good public policy,” said Kerry Hyatt Blomquist, legal director at the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Continued victimization

Womack lost her home and her belongings to a fire on May 31, 2012. If not for the advice of a police officer, she could have lost her life.

kerry blomquist Blomquist

Her marriage had endured instances of abuse, but in May 2012, after her husband became violent during an argument, Womack gathered her two children and left. She subsequently filed a protective order that required her husband to stay away from the residence and her place of employment.

A law enforcement official who escorted Womack to the house insisted she gather some essential items and stay elsewhere for her own protection. Womack spent the night at her parents’ house with the intention of returning to her own home after work the next day.

Hours after Womack settled at her parents, her husband called her father and said the house was on fire. By the time Womack was allowed to go to her house, her husband had been arrested and everything she and her children owned was gone.

“We have nothing,” Womack said. “We don’t have anything.”

In a letter dated Nov. 21, 2012, Allstate rejected Womack’s claim. The company stated the policy covering the home imposed joint obligations, which means the responsibilities, acts and failures to act of one insured person will be binding to the other insured person.

Allstate went on to explain that its own investigation had determined that Robert Womack had “both motive and opportunity to set the fire.” It also contended that both Gwen and Robert Womack had “made material misrepresentations regarding this claim.”

Therefore, based upon the policy’s language, the company stated it would not be providing coverage.

Blomquist noted denial of insurance claims from domestic violence victims not only continues the victimization of individuals who have already been abused but also bolsters the position of their abusers who are trying to either kill their victims, devastate them or cause them to be homeless.

womack-burnedhouse-15col.jpg The house was allegedly burned by the woman’s estranged husband. (Photo submitted)

In this case, Blomquist believes Womack has a right to at least half of the amount provided for in the homeowner’s policy.

Allstate declined to further discuss the basis for its decision since the matter is currently under litigation. However, in an email to Indiana Lawyer, the insurance company pointed to its support of domestic violence victims.

“We were very concerned to learn of the unfortunate and criminal circumstances surrounding Ms. Womack’s claim and are saddened by her personal situation,” the email stated, adding the company has invested more than $30 million in support of domestic violence victims. “Allstate understands the devastating impact that domestic violence can have on individuals and households. We are strongly committed to help reduce the incidence and impact of this terrible crime.”

Since the fire, Womack has no permanent place to live. She maintains with the insurance payment, she would be not only able to afford a residence, but also she could have kept her home out of foreclosure.

Now her family is separated, with her teenage daughters staying in two separate locations while she lives with a neighbor.

“It’s hard to say ‘good night’ over a text message,” Womack said.

Unique and special issue

Angela Krahulik, partner at Ice Miller, has handled insurance cases that involved denial of coverage because of an intentional act, but those have mostly been related to environmental contamination matters. Never has she seen a claim be denied where an allegation of domestic violence results in a criminal act.

The Womack case, Krahulik said, involves a unique and special issue. Namely, the victim of the abuse has to deal with the mess caused by the criminal act while the accused abuser is not penalized by the denial of coverage.

Krahulik, along with associate attorneys Elizabeth Timme and Sarah Murray, decided to take this case after hearing Blomquist talk about Womack’s situation during a luncheon for the Women and the Law Division of the Indianapolis Bar Association.

The complaint they filed has one count against Womack’s husband under the Indiana Crime Victims Relief Act. It also lists three counts against Allstate: breach of duties of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract and declaratory relief.

Cases in other states challenging the intentional act exclusion as applied to domestic violence victims have been carried to the appellate level and, in California, all the way to the state’s Supreme Court.

Krahulik is not looking that far ahead. She hopes Allstate will rescind its denial and provide Womack with coverage.

Although this is the first case of insurance denial to a domestic violence victim to reach the Indiana courts, Blomquist suspects there have been others. But those victims did not have the luck in securing pro bono legal assistance.

Blomquist said she trusts the courts to understand the equity issue in the Womack case. And, noting the national trend, she has faith in the court system.

“I’m cautiously optimistic,” she said. “I’m just glad we can at least make the argument.”

At this point, with the complaint filed and Ice Miller attorneys on her case, Womack described herself as “scared.”

“I feel like if they can’t help me, then I’m done,” she said.•

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. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT