Grant of judgment as a matter of law was improper: jury weighed witnesses’ credibility and determined that plaintiffs had not intentionally misrepresented anything to insurer regarding the fire damage

The plaintiffs’ home had sustained fire damage, and they presented a claim under their homeowners policy with the defendant. Fire investigators determined that the fire had been intentionally set since the doors to the home were locked at the time of the fire and there was no sign of forced entry. Allstate determined that the plaintiffs had provided a material misrepresentation when they failed to inform investigators that their daughter had a key to the home. Allstate denied the plaintiffs’ claim under the policy’s fraud provision. The plaintiffs sued Allstate for breach of contract and bad faith. The district court denied Allstate’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, and the case proceeded to trial. At trial, the plaintiffs testified that they did not intend to deceive Allstate and that they had forgotten that their daughter had a key. The jury found in favor of the plaintiffs. The court then granted Allstate’s renewed motion, finding that the testimony regarding the number of keys was material and that the plaintiffs’ intent to deceive Allstate could be inferred from the circumstances. The plaintiffs appealed to the 11^th Circuit Court, which reversed. The question on appeal was whether the evidence at trial was so one-sided that it required a finding that the plaintiffs made the misrepresentation willfully and with the intent to deceive. The Circuit Court held that it could not, as the district court did, necessarily infer that the plaintiffs’ intended to defraud the insurance company. The jury had the opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses and believed the plaintiffs’ explanation that the misrepresentation was an innocent mistake. Thus, the court held that the district court had erred in granting Allstate’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.

_{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2015}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2015 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}