McGory v. Allstate Ins. Co., 57650

Citation527 So.2d 632
Decision Date04 May 1988
Docket NumberNo. 57650,57650
PartiesBobby McGORY and Dorothy McGory v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi

Jim Waide, Tupelo, for appellant.

Lynn Brumfield, McCoy, Wilkins, Noblin & Stephens, Jackson, for appellee.

Michael D. Greer, W. Scott Collins, Mitchell, McNutt, Bush, Lagrone & Sams, Tupelo, Guy T. Gillespie, III, Robert H. Faulks, Holcomb, Dunbar, Connell, Chaffin & Willard, Oxford, James L. Carroll, Richard T. Lawrence, Robert A. Miller, Watkins & Eager, Mark Haire, Arthur F. Jernigan, Jr., Phelps, Dunbar, Marks, Claverie & Sims, Jackson, for amicus curiae.

Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and ROBERTSON and ZUCCARO, JJ.

ROBERTSON, Justice, for the court:

I.

This is a fraud by civil arson case. The jury found for the insurer, and judgment has been entered voiding coverage on the insureds' rental property. The case must be reversed, however, because the trial court failed to require that the insurer prove the insureds' arson by clear and convincing evidence, opting instead for the lesser by-a-preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. We remand for a new trial.

II.

A.

In 1981, Bobby and Dorothy McGory bought from one Steven Hudson a house on Highway 6 in Nettleton, Mississippi. Dorothy McGory took title to the property in her name. The McGorys promised to pay Hudson $45,000.00, a promise secured by a deed of trust on the house. Unbeknownst to the McGorys, at the time of sale, the house was encumbered by a mortgage held by the Bank of Mississippi. The McGorys also bought a barbecue restaurant located right next door to the Nettleton house.

The McGorys, jointly, purchased fire insurance on this property from Allstate Insurance Company, with coverage from May 12, 1983, through May 12, 1984. The house was insured for $60,000.00; its contents for $10,000.00. The policy listed only the Bank of Mississippi as a mortgagee and indicated that the house would be occupied by one family. In fact, both Hudson and the bank held mortgages, and the McGorys did not live in the house, but rented the downstairs to two single tenants and the upstairs to a family. The McGorys lived in nearby Okolona, Mississippi.

The McGorys substantially repaired the house. They fixed the plumbing and wiring, leveled the wood floors, replaced the windows, hung chandelier fixtures, installed wall-to-wall carpeting and all new furnishings and painted. On March 21, 1984, the house was substantially damaged by fire. The fire was noticed at approximately 3:00 p.m. Uncontradicted proof established that: On the day of the fire, Dorothy was busy working in the next door restaurant and did not approach the house until the fire broke out; Bobby was in Okolona and was not seen in Nettleton near the burning house, until approximately 3:40 p.m.; and, the McGorys' three children were in school until 2:30 p.m. when they joined their mother at the barbecue restaurant.

Two Nettleton volunteer firemen and an arson expert testified that the fire was incendiary (deliberate) in nature and had multiple origins. The arson expert was of the opinion, based on the pattern of the fire, that accelerants had been used to start it. One of the firemen and the arson expert stated positively that the fire could not have been started by children playing with matches. A fourth witness, a Mississippi fire marshall, indicated that there was one primary origin and two "most likely" other origins and agreed that the fire was consistent with incendiarism.

At the time of the fire, Bobby owed a Nettleton furniture dealer $42,000.00. In addition, a collection agency had been employed to collect a total of $7618.27 from Bobby. In the few months before the fire, the McGorys had allowed all of their insurance policies, including the one on their primary home in Okolona, to lapse. The McGorys' insurance agent stated that the McGorys had on several occasions inquired about increasing the coverage on the Nettleton house. He stated further that not too long before the fire he had decided to cancel the policy covering the house and that the McGorys knew this. On the day of the fire, Bobby called him to ask whether the Nettleton house was still covered under the policy.

The McGorys stated that they once inquired about increased coverage in response to a notice sent out by Allstate encouraging them to do so. They also claimed not to have known, prior to the fire, that the policy was being cancelled. In fact, they did not receive written notice of cancellation until April 2, 1984, which was twelve days after the fire.

B.

Allstate Insurance Company commenced this civil action by filing in the Chancery Court of Lee County, Mississippi, its complaint for declaratory judgment. See Rule 57, Miss.R.Civ.P. Allstate named as Defendants Bobby and Dorothy McGory and as well G.J. Gravlee d/b/a Gravlee Lumber Company, Nettleton Building Supply Corp. and Steve Hudson, each of whom was and is a creditor of the McGorys. The complaint alleged that Allstate had issued a policy of insurance covering certain property located in Nettleton effective May 12, 1983, to May 12, 1984, and sought a declaration, inter alia, that it had no responsibility under the policy by reason the fact that the fire was of incendiary origins attributable to the McGorys.

The McGorys answered admitting the insurance policy but denying any responsibility for the fire. Moreover, the McGorys filed a counterclaim against Allstate asserting a loss within the coverage of the policy and demanding payment from Allstate.

In due course, the matter was transferred to the Circuit Court of Lee County whereupon trial commenced on November 5, 1985, before the Circuit Court sitting with a civil jury. On November 6, 1985, the jury returned a verdict for Allstate, nine jurors voting for the verdict and three voting against it. See Rule 48(a), Miss.R.Civ.P.

The McGorys then timely filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial. On February 21, 1986, the Circuit Court entered its order overruling both motions. The McGorys now prosecute an appeal to this Court.

III.

A.

The McGorys first argue that the Circuit Court erred in denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Conceding that the fire was of incendiary origins, the McGorys point, simply put, is that Allstate failed to prove that either of them lit the match.

Under Mississippi law, wilful incendiarism by an insured is a defense to the insurer's liability. Davidson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 641 F.Supp. 503, 507 (N.D.Miss.1986); Sullivan v. American Motorist Ins. Co., 605 F.2d 169, 170 (5th Cir.1979) citing Williams v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 230 F.2d 293, 294 (5th Cir.1956); and Brower v. State, 217 Miss. 425, 431-32, 64 So.2d 576, 579 (1953). This is true even if the insurance policy does not expressly exclude coverage for wilful burning. Davidson, 641 F.Supp. at 507; Sullivan, 605 F.2d at 170.

Arson like adultery is seldom seen, and our law allows that it be proved circumstantially. Recurrent in the cases are three elements of the circumstantial claim, to-wit: (1) an incendiary fire; (2) motive of the insured to destroy the property; (3) evidence that the insured had the opportunity to set the fire or to procure its being set by another. See Davidson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 641 F.Supp. 503, 507 (N.D.Miss.1986); Vicksburg Furniture Mfg., Ltd. v. Aetna Cas. and Surety Company, 625 F.2d 1167, 1171-72 (5th Cir.1980); Burress v. Standard Fire Insurance Co., 642 F.Supp. 62, 66-67 (N.D.Miss.1986); and Gardner v. Wilkinson, 643 F.2d 1135, 1136 (5th Cir.1981). See also Arms v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 731 F.2d 1245, 1249 (6th Cir.1984); Don Burton, Inc. v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 575 F.2d 702, 707 (9th Cir.1978); Mele v. All-Star Ins. Corp., 453 F.Supp. 1338, 1341 (E.D.Penn.1978); Godwin v. Farmers Ins. Co. of America, 129 Ariz. 416, 631 P.2d 571, 574 (App.1981). We accept these as a part of our positive law.

B.

The standards we employ in reviewing a trial court's refusal to grant judgment notwithstanding the verdict are familiar. See, e.g., Stubblefield v. Jesco, Inc., 464 So.2d 47, 54 (Miss.1985); City of Jackson v. Locklar, 431 So.2d 475, 478 (Miss.1983); Paymaster Oil Mill Co. v. Mitchell, 319 So.2d 652, 657 (Miss.1975). Those need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that these standards apply to each element of a claim or defense.

Before considering the sufficiency of the evidence, however, we must consider the burden--and quantum--of proof required of the insurer. Indeed, by a separate assignment of error, the McGorys raise quite seriously the question of the burden of proof.

To begin with, the burden rests upon an insurer claiming civil arson to prove it, and this is so whether it be asserted defensively in an action by the insured on a policy or, as here, in an action by the insurer for declaratory judgment. But what is the quantum of proof an insurer must offer to establish the policy avoidance defense of civil arson?

Many cases in other jurisdictions have held that the insurer's burden is the conventional "by a preponderance of the evidence" burden. See Davidson v. State Farm, 641 F.Supp. 503, 507 (N.D.Miss.1986); Burress v. Standard Fire Insurance Co., 642 F.Supp. 62, 67 (N.D.Miss.1986); Vicksburg Furniture Mfg. Ltd. v. Aetna Cas. and Surety Co., 625 F.2d 1167, 1169-70 (5th Cir.1980); Neises v. Solomon State Bank, 236 Kan. 767, 696 P.2d 372, 378 (1985). We have never passed upon the point.

Civil arson seems very much like fraud. And as all know, Mississippi law requires that a party charging fraud prove his charge by clear and convincing evidence. See, e.g., Beck Enterprises, Inc. v. Hester, 512 So.2d 672, 675 (Miss.1987); Cherry v. Anthony, Gibbs, Sage, 501 So.2d 416, 420 (Miss.1987); Johnson v. Brewer, 427 So.2d 118, 126 (Miss.1983).

Stewart v. Domestic Loans of Brookhaven, Inc., 199 So.2d 444 (Miss.1...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • Rena, Inc. v. Brien
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • April 17, 1998
    ...may recover their proportionate interest despite intentional destruction of partnership property by another partner); McGory v. Allstate Ins. Co., 527 So.2d 632 (Miss.1988) (absent policy provision excluding coverage because of deliberate wrongful act of one co-insured, innocent co-insured ......
  • White v. Thompson
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 17, 1990
    ...the court below has failed to enforce that standard. McClendon v. State, 539 So.2d 1375, 1377-78 (Miss.1989); McGory v. Allstate Insurance Co., 527 So.2d 632, 638 (Miss.1988). It is clear to my mind that the Court below--accepting at face value that Court's stated view of the case--applied ......
  • McFarland v. Utica Fire Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi
    • December 16, 1992
    ...(5th Cir. 1985). Both parties rely heavily upon two of the same court opinions in support of their arguments: McGory v. Allstate Insurance Company, 527 So.2d 632 (Miss.1988), and Dunn v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 927 F.2d 869 (5th Cir.1991) (applying Mississippi In McGory v. All......
  • Dill v. Southern Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., No. 1999-CA-01130-SCT.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 25, 2001
    ...in which this Court has concluded that the correct quantum of proof is by clear and convincing evidence. See McGory v. Allstate Ins. Co., 527 So.2d 632 (Miss.1988). In McGory, the insurance company brought suit against the insureds to divest them of proceeds paid under a fire insurance poli......
  • 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