Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance v. Calvin, 802 F.3d 933

Calvin and Garrisha Calvin lost their home to a 2011 fire; Metropolitan denied the claim and sought declaratory relief to void the policy.
Calvin previously had a 2006 fire at the same home; insurer paid that claim and he rebuilt on the same land.
Calvin applied for a new homeowners policy in 2007 via Mackey Insurance Agency; he admitted a prior fire loss during application.
The Mackey agent allegedly misrecorded Calvin’s prior fire loss; Calvin signed the application without reading it.
Metropolitan denied the 2011 claim after an investigation; the fire cause could not be determined; Arson defense was raised.
District court granted summary judgment for Metropolitan on several issues, then ruled the policy void due to misrepresentation; other claims were resolved or remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the policy is void due to misrepresentation in the application	Calvin’s misrepresentation was due to agent error; signature does not bind if fraud or misstatement by agent.	Calvin knowingly misrepresented prior fire loss; misrepresentation justifies rescission.	Reversed on misrepresentation issue; remanded for further proceedings.
Whether Metropolitan may seek rescission/void ab initio despite timing of premium refunds	Rescission not properly supported by record.	Rescission is proper; refunds not required precondition.	Remanded for district court consideration of rescission argument.
Whether bad faith claim against Metropolitan survives disposition of misrepresentation	Metropolitan’s investigation and timing show bad faith.	No evidence of dishonesty or oppression; dispute was in good faith.	Bad faith claim affirmed as improperly supported; district court proper on this count.
Whether arson defense can be decided on summary judgment	Circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove arson as a matter of law.	Circumstantial evidence could support arson finding at trial.	Arson defense denial affirmed; not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Whether district court properly handled discovery disputes	Motions to strike witnesses/exhibits and compel documents were warranted.	Rulings within district court's discretion; no gross abuse.	Discovery rulings affirmed; privilege/production issues remanded where appropriate.

Neill v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 139 S.W.3d 484 (Ark. 2003) (insurer may rescind for misrepresentation; agent involvement can create fact issues)
Neill v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 98 S.W.3d 448 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003) (distinguishing for signature language; agency fault can preclude summary judgment)
Carmichael v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 810 S.W.2d 39 (Ark. 1991) (general duty to know contents of signed documents; exceptions exist)
Willis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 219 F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 2000) (materiality of misrepresentations governs coverage rights)
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Broadway Arms Corp., 664 S.W.2d 463 (Ark. 1984) (bad faith standard requires dishonest, oppressive conduct)