Foremost Insurance Company v. Charles Pendleton, 675 F. App'x 457

Charles Pendleton bought a 1956 Mercedes and obtained insurance from Foremost; the car was destroyed on January 28, 2014 after a collision and subsequent fire.
Pendleton claimed an acquaintance, George Reed, rear-ended him on icy back roads, causing the Mercedes to hit a tree and then catch fire; Reed initially denied knowing Pendleton at the scene, and the truck used was registered to Pendleton.
Forensic evidence: a fire investigator located the fire origin near the front passenger seat and found no apparent natural ignition source there; an accident-reconstructionist testified the Mercedes showed only minor "push" damage and was in poor mechanical condition before the incident.
Foremost denied the insurance claim, concluded the loss was not accidental, and sued for a declaratory judgment; Pendleton counterclaimed for policy proceeds; the case went to jury trial.
The district court admitted evidence of Pendleton’s prior insurance claims under FRE 404(b) as evidence of modus operandi; over objection, the jury found by clear and convincing evidence that Pendleton intentionally destroyed or procured the destruction of the Mercedes.
Pendleton appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of incendiary origin and motive for civil arson and that admission of prior-claims evidence was unduly prejudicial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Pendleton)	Defendant's Argument (Foremost)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove intentional destruction	Foremost failed to prove incendiary origin and motive required for civil arson	Jury need not find an intentionally set fire; evidence supports intentional destruction or procurement of destruction	Affirmed — sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find intentional destruction by clear and convincing evidence
Admissibility of prior insurance-claim evidence	Admission of prior claims was unduly prejudicial and unfairly swayed the jury	Prior-claims evidence admissible under FRE 404(b) to show modus operandi; even if error, it was harmless given the record	Affirmed — district court’s ruling not reversible; any error would be harmless

Foradori v. Harris, 523 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for JMOL/Rule 50)
Hiltgen v. Sumrall, 47 F.3d 695 (5th Cir. 1995) (Rule 50 as challenge to legal sufficiency)
Flowers v. S. Reg'l Physician Servs. Inc., 247 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2001) (deferential review of jury verdict)
Heck v. Triche, 775 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 2014) (upholding jury verdict standard)
Sullivan v. Am. Motorist Ins. Co., 605 F.2d 169 (5th Cir. 1979) (evidence sufficient to support finding insured intentionally set fire)
McGory v. Allstate Ins. Co., 527 So. 2d 632 (Miss. 1988) (civil-arson elements discussed)
Lyondell Chem. Co. v. Occidental Chem. Corp., 608 F.3d 284 (5th Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)