Daughter Does Not Have to Pay for the Sins of Her Mother: Insurer Entitled to Restitution from Insureds but Appellate Court Remands Damage Award

The 2015 holiday season might be a bit tense for a mother-daughter team ordered to pay restitution to their insurer for fraud and misrepresentation. Secura Ins. v. Thomas, 2015 Mich. App. LEXIS 2230 (Mich. App. December 1, 2015). While restitution was owed for the wrongful acts, the court held joint and several liability did not apply to frauds in which a party (the daughter) was not directly involved. This case presents an example an insurer performing excellent due diligence in
Continue reading...

Insurer Required to Pay Policyholder Attorneys’ Fees Despite Policyholder Misrepresentations

The Florida Third District Court of Appeal found that an insurer was required to pay attorney fees that homeowners incurred during a coverage dispute despite a finding that the policyholders committed fraud. The Third District affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding that the insurer was required to pay the policyholders’ attorneys’ fees because the insurer lost its counter-claim against the policyholders. The court found that there was no exception for fraud. In Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Bascuas, (Third District
Continue reading...

Policyholder Required to Pay Back Insurer $900,000 Based on Misrepresentations

A Texas appellate court upheld a substantial jury award against a policyholder on fraud claims in Jackson Fulgham v. Allied Property and Casualty Ins. Co.. The insurer counter-sued the policyholder real estate firm over fraudulent claims it had made about hailstorm damage, resulting in a $900,000 jury award in favor of the insurer. The appellate court upheld the verdict claiming that the evidence supported such finding. In 2009, the policyholder made a claim under its property insurance policy for damage to the
Continue reading...

Law Firm’s Policy Rescinded For Misrepresentation in Application

The Supreme Court of Illinois held that the insurer was entitled to rescind a law firm’s malpractice policy based on material misrepresentations in the firm’s renewal application. The main issue in this case was whether the policy could be rescinded despite one of the firm’s attorneys being unaware of the misrepresentation. The appellate court had ruled that, under the innocent insured doctrine, the insurer was required to maintain coverage for the innocent partner despite the misrepresentation on the application when
Continue reading...