Peterson v. Homesite Indemnity Co.
840 N.W.2d 885
Neb.2013Background
- Peterson purchased a homeowners policy from Homesite covering direct physical loss including theft, with no definition of theft.
- Peterson hired USVLT as a moving coordinator; movers charged extra and refused delivery until payment.
- Movers presented paperwork from Georgia-based companies, with questionable legitimacy and no clear USVLT affiliation.
- Peterson withheld some payments due to weight discrepancies and demanded in-person reweighing; movers did not deliver.
- Peterson's claim was denied by Homesite, which moved for summary judgment arguing no theft occurred due to a bailment/contract dispute.
- Nebraska Supreme Court reverses, holding genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether a theft occurred and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definition of theft applies broadly | Peterson argues broad theft definition includes conversion. | Homesite argues theft should be narrowly interpreted under bailment. | Genuine issues exist; broad theft definition applied. |
| Whether bailment negates theft claim | Peterson contends bailment does not defeat theft if criminal intent exists. | Homesite asserts bailment precludes theft claim absent criminal intent beyond contract. | Bailment does not resolve fact issues; potential theft with criminal intent remains. |
| Whether there was a theft with criminal intent | Evidence suggests movers acted with criminal intent to obtain extra funds. | Evidence shows contractual/weight-dispute rationale; no criminal intent shown. | Issues of material fact exist regarding criminal intent. |
| Proper disposition of breach of contract claim on summary judgment | If theft present, breach of contract claim survives; summary judgment inappropriate. | If bailment/contract controls, no theft, thus no breach. | District court erred in granting summary judgment; remanded. |
| Bad faith claim viability | Bad faith claim should survive if there is a genuine issue as to theft. | Bad faith dependent on lack of theft; if no theft, no bad faith. | Bad faith claim likewise reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Modern Sounds & Systems, Inc. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 200 Neb. 46 (Neb. 1978) (broadened theft to include unlawful taking under a broad policy definition)
- Shada v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 286 Neb. 444 (Neb. 2013) (standard for reviewing summary judgment and inferences)
- Cartwright v. State, 286 Neb. 431 (Neb. 2013) (summary judgment requires no genuine material fact disputes)
- Alsidez v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 282 Neb. 890 (Neb. 2011) (insurance contract interpretation; liberal construction for insured)
- Poulton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Cos., 267 Neb. 569 (Neb. 2004) (treatment of specific perils policy and coverage scope)