State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mitchell, 98-3222

Decision Date08 March 1999
Docket NumberNo. 98-3222,98-3222
Citation179 F.3d 590
Parties, STATE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Appellee, v. Paul B. MITCHELL; Geraldine L. Mitchell, Appellants. . Submitted:
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was Blair K. Drazic of Maryland Heights, Missouri.

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was Robert W. Cockerham of St. Louis, Missouri.

BEFORE: RICHARD S. ARNOLD and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and STROM, 1 District Judge.

HANSEN, Circuit J.

Paul and Geraldine Mitchell (the Mitchells) appeal the district court's 2 judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company (State Auto). We affirm.

The relevant facts viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict are as follows. State Auto issued an insurance policy to the Mitchells for property located in St. Louis, Missouri. The policy included a clause excepting from coverage losses occurring due to "vandalism and malicious mischief, theft or attempted theft or breakage of glass and safety glazing materials if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days immediately before the loss." (App. at 27.) The policy also excluded coverage if the insured "intentionally concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance relating to [the] insurance." (Id. at 28.)

The Mitchells had leased the property to Blanche Hines. Mrs. Hines and her husband last occupied the property on July 15, 1995. The Mitchells filed a claim under the State Auto policy for damages allegedly resulting from a theft that occurred on September 20, 1995. The Mitchells initially claimed a total loss of $2,100, but later increased their claim to approximately $89,000. The Mitchells also made various misrepresentations to State Auto. For example, even though the property had remained unoccupied after July 15, the Mitchells represented to State Auto that their tenant had not left the property until September 1995, shortly before the alleged loss. State Auto denied the claim in its entirety. State Auto asserted that the Mitchells misrepresented material facts relating to the insurance, and that the property in question had been vacant for thirty days prior to the alleged loss.

After it denied the Mitchells' claim, State Auto filed the present declaratory judgment action in the district court seeking a declaration that coverage for the Mitchells' alleged loss was excluded under the policy. Jurisdiction was premised on diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (1994). The case proceeded to trial, and the district court instructed the jury that it must find in favor of State Auto if it found either of the following: (1) that one or both of the Mitchells "intentionally concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance relating to the insurance;" or (2) "that the ... dwelling had been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days immediately before September 20, 1995." (Instruction No. 6; App. at 70.) The district court rejected an instruction proffered by the Mitchells that would have required the jury to use a narrow definition of the policy term "vacant." The jury returned a verdict in favor of State Auto on the misrepresentation issue as well as the vacancy issue.

The Mitchells argue on appeal that the district court committed reversible error when it refused to instruct the jury on the meaning of the term...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Lawyer v. Hartford Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 99-5058-CV-SW-1.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Missouri
    • April 20, 2000
    ......Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Lower Brule Sioux Tribe v. State of S.D., 104 F.3d 1017, 1021 (8th Cir.1997). If the ......
  • Campos-Holmer v. Standard Life Ins. Co., No. 04-1168-CV-W-FJG.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Missouri
    • May 16, 2005
    ...... Court on December 29, 2004, noting that plaintiff's state law claims are completely preempted by ERISA. See ...Special Agents Mut. Benefit Ass'n, Inc., 957 F.2d 617, 621 (8th Cir.1992). ......
  • Galm v. Eaton Corp., C04-4083-MWB.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • March 1, 2005
    ......Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 2002 WL 538851, *7 (D.Kan.2002); Fitts v. ...The Executive Comm. of O'Reilly Auto, 206 F.3d 806 (8th Cir.2000); Barnhart v. UNUM ...While Eaton initially failed to state its reason for the requested extension as ......
  • Al-Abood v. El-Shamari, AL-ABOO
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • April 6, 2000
    ...of the damage award. I. The facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, are as follows. See State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mitchell, 179 F.3d 590, 591 (8th Cir. 1999). Al-Abood is an Iraqi national who resides in Monaco. The El-Shamaris are also originally from Iraq but have bec......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT