Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Neil v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (Roaf, J.).
Date: 02-19-2003
Case Number: CA02-605
Judge: Andree Layton Roaf
Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Gibson Law Office, by:
"_new">C.S. "Chuck" Gibson, for appellant.
Defendant's Attorney:
Watts, Donovan & Tilley, P.A., by:
"_new">Jim Tilley and
"_new">Michael McCarty Harrison, for appellee.
Appellant Lamar Neill's home was damaged by a fire, and he filed a claim with his homeowners' insurance company, appellee Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company. After finding out that Neill had previous fire losses that were not disclosed in his application, Nationwide denied Neill's claim and filed an action for declaratory relief, seeking to void the policy. Neill counterclaimed for breach of contract and bad faith. The trial court grantedsummary judgment in favor of Nationwide based on the misrepresentation in the application and voided the policy. On appeal, Neill argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Nationwide and voiding the policy. We reverse and remand.
On November 18, 1993, Neill met with a Nationwide agent, Leon Anderson, to apply for homeowners' insurance for a mobile home. According to Neill, Anderson asked him several questions and typed in Neill's answers on the computer, such as whether he had ever been sued and whether he had ever filed bankruptcy. Neill testified in his deposition that Anderson did not ask him about any previous fire losses, or if he did ask him, Neill stated that he must not have understood the question because he would not have replied that he had no prior losses. After Anderson finished asking the questions, the application for insurance was printed out, and Neill testified that he signed it without reading it, as he assumed that it contained the answers he had given to Anderson. Above his signature, the application contained a clause that Neill declared that the facts in the application were true and that he was requesting the company to issue the policy in reliance thereon. It is undisputed that on that application, under a section titled "Past Losses," the answer "None" was typed.
On April 16, 1997, Neill's home was severely damaged by fire, and he made a claim for insurance benefits with Nationwide. In the course of its investigation, Nationwide learned from Neill that he had had three previous fire losses. Nationwide denied Neill's claim, stating that he made a material misrepresentation in his application, and filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, seeking to have the policy declared void ab initio. The trial court granted summary judgment to Nationwide based on the misrepresentation, and Neill appeals from that ruling.
* * *
Click the case caption above for the
full text of the Court's opinion.
Reversed and remanded in favor of Plaintiff.
About This Case
What was the outcome of Neil v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (Roaf, J.).?
The outcome was: Pursuant to the foregoing authorities, we find that there is a fact question as to whether Nationwide asked and correctly recorded Neill's answer about previous losses. The fact that Neill signed the certification that the information was true is merely probative evidence of his misrepresentation and not dispositive of the case. Thus, summary judgment in this instance was notappropriate, and we reverse and remand. Reversed and remanded in favor of Plaintiff.
Which court heard Neil v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (Roaf, J.).?
This case was heard in Arkansas Court of Appeals, AR. The presiding judge was Andree Layton Roaf.
Who were the attorneys in Neil v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (Roaf, J.).?
Plaintiff's attorney: Gibson Law Office, by: C.S. "Chuck" Gibson, for appellant.. Defendant's attorney: Watts, Donovan & Tilley, P.A., by: Jim Tilley and Michael McCarty Harrison, for appellee..
When was Neil v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (Roaf, J.). decided?
This case was decided on February 19, 2003.