Robert Young v. Allstate Insurance Company
685 F.3d 782
8th Cir.2012Background
- Youngs insured by Allstate; policy bars concealment/misrepresentation of material facts.
- Fire damaged garage contents; an eleven-page inventory was prepared by their daughter Sonji and signed by the Youngs without careful review.
- Jan. 22 meeting with Allstate agent Barnes; inventory not reviewed or shown at that meeting.
- Jan. 28 and Feb. 6 statements to Crowder; Youngs indicate daughter helped with inventory, suggesting lack of sole reliance; later February 12 meeting to discuss removing items.
- March 26 revised inventory after reviewing debris; sworn examinations revealed overstatements and discrepancies; district court granted summary judgment for Allstate; the district court held signatures bound the Youngs and no genuine issue of misrepresentation.
- Court reverses, finding genuine issues of material fact remain for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intent to deceive required | Youngs contend not proven; misstatements due to mistake and reliance on daughter | Discrepancies and signatures indicate potential deception | Genuine issue for trial on intent to deceive |
| Conclusive binding effect of initial inventory | Insureds may contradict/explain at trial; not conclusively bound by signatures | Signatures bind the insured to contents | Not conclusive; credibility and explanations for trial |
| Adequacy of summary judgment on alternative grounds | Evidence could show inadvertence; not clear-cut intent to deceive | Overwhelming evidence of intent; summary judgment appropriate | Not resolved against Youngs; issue for trial on intent remains |
Key Cases Cited
- United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Historic Pres. Trust, 265 F.3d 722 (8th Cir. 2001) (intent to deceive required for misrepresentation to void coverage)
- Gould v. MFA Mut. Ins. Co., 331 S.W.2d 663 (Mo. Ct. App. 1960) (fraud requires intent to deceive; mere misstatement may be insufficient)
- In re Smith, 749 S.W.2d 408 (Mo. 1988) (constructive knowledge does not equal deceit in different context)
- Parks v. Md. Cas. Co., 91 S.W.2d 1186 (Mo. Ct. App. 1936) (statements in proofs of loss not conclusive if made in good faith)
- United States ex rel. Bussen Quarries, Inc. v. Thomas, 938 F.2d 831 (8th Cir. 1991) (knowledge of contents does not prove intent to deceive)
- Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Scott, 486 F.3d 418 (8th Cir. 2007) (discrepancies between proof of loss and bankruptcy petition distinguished by lack of inadvertence)