Kerr v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.

Citation731 F.2d 227
Decision Date05 April 1984
Docket NumberNos. 83-1182,s. 83-1182
PartiesBobby Earl KERR and Mildred Kellett Kerr, Appellees, v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY CO., Appellant. Bobby Earl KERR and Mildred Kellett Kerr, Appellants, v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY CO., Appellee. (L), 83-1352.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)

John R. Ferguson and Wyatt Saunders, Laurens, S.C., for Bobby Earl Kerr and Mildred Kellett Kerr.

John E. Johnston, Greenville, S.C. (Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, Greenville, S.C., on brief), for State Farm Fire & Casualty Company.

Before RUSSELL and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges and BRYAN, * Senior Circuit Judge.

ALBERT V. BRYAN, Senior Circuit Judge:

Upon the destruction by fire of their home and personal property, the owners sued the insurer for recovery of their losses. The Court, relying on the jury's answers to its interrogatories, awarded damages to the owners for the policy-stated value of the house, but rejected their claims for the loss of personalty and related items. Both parties appeal. We uphold the award for loss of the house, but set aside the jury's verdict as to the other claims, remanding those issues for a new trial.

I

Plaintiffs, Bobby Earl Kerr and his wife, Mildred Kellett Kerr, were the insured under a policy issued by the defendant, State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., covering their home and personal belongings in rural Laurens County, South Carolina. On the morning of July 26, 1980, the Kerrs' house caught fire and was damaged extensively. In due time, the owners notified State Farm of the destruction, and presented it with a proof of loss statement. It included claims for the loss of the house and personal property, as well as living expenses while they were kept from their home, the cost of debris removal and damage to the residence's trees and shrubs.

State Farm refused to satisfy any of these claims. Thereupon the Kerrs brought this action against it in the Federal Court for the District of South Carolina to recover their losses. As affirmative defenses, the insurer pleaded that the Kerrs had forfeited their entire insurance coverage because of their involvement in setting the dwelling afire and also, by their intentional misrepresentation of the extent of the personal property loss. While it found the Kerrs blameless in the ignition of the fire, the jury found that the homeowners had fraudulently exaggerated the value of the destroyed personal property. 1

On these premises, the District Court, 552 F.Supp. 992, granted judgment to the Kerrs for the value of the dwelling less the amount paid by the insurer to the mortgagee thereof plus interest accrued on the award before the entry of judgment.

II

In charging the jury, the trial judge repeatedly instructed them that to accept State Farm's defense of misrepresentation, they must find "by a preponderance of the evidence" that the Kerrs acted fraudulently in representing the value of their lost personal effects. The Kerrs assign error to this charge, averring that under South Carolina law, State Farm had the burden of establishing fraud by "clear and convincing proof." Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. American Bank Trust Shares, Inc., 460 F.Supp. 549, 555 (D.S.C.), aff'd, 629 F.2d 951 (4th Cir.1980).

The Kerrs failed to object to this instruction and such omission would in the usual course preclude later consideration of the point by this Court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 51. However, we "may take notice of plain error arising from the trial court's failure to charge the jury correctly." Edwards v. Mayes, 385 F.2d 369, 373 n. 1 (4th Cir.1967). Our review is fully justified here, since the error was fundamental, and highly prejudicial. Ratay v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Co., 378 F.2d 209, 212 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973, 88 S.Ct. 472, 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967). On this record, we conclude that the District Court's erroneous wording of the instruction requires reversal. 2 Therefore, we remand the case to the District Court for separate and specific jury findings of whether State Farm proved fraud by "clear and convincing" evidence with regard to the claims for personal property contained in the house, the lost trees and shrubs, the cost of debris removal and the Kerrs' living expenses.

III

Regardless of the outcome on remand, we think the Kerrs are entitled to collect on their policy for the damage to their dwelling. The law in the majority of jurisdictions in this country forbids recovery under an insurance policy upon a finding of misrepresentation, fraud or false swearing as to any portion of the covered property. The Supreme Court of South Carolina, however, has defied this trend by maintaining that the provisions of an insurance policy are severable, so that forfeiture of all the insurance will result only if the fraud taints the entire coverage. See, e.g., Trakas v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance Co., 141 S.C. 64, 139 S.E. 176 (1927); Spradley v. Georgia Home Insurance Co., 112 S.C. 151, 98 S.E. 285 (1919). The alleged fraud does not relate to the damage to the structure of the house itself. Thus, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Tempelis v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • June 17, 1992
    ...Court relied on Kerr v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 552 F.Supp. 992 (D.S.C.1982) aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 731 F.2d 227 (4th Cir.1984). In Kerr, the federal district court similarly held [a]n insurer may not rely on a provision excluding coverage absent a causal connect......
  • Schneer v. Allstate Indem. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 17, 2000
    ...must be regarded as severable from a contents claim so that the fraud may be attributed only to the latter. Kerr v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 731 F.2d 227 (4th Cir.1984)(applying rule of severability); Claxton v. Fidelity & Guaranty Fire Corp., 179 Miss. 556, 175 So. 210 (1937)(same);......
  • Wong Ken v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 96-1230
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • January 8, 1997
    ...from the living expenses claim so that the fraud may be attributed only to the latter, compare, e.g., Kerr v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 731 F.2d 227 (4th Cir.1984)(applying rule of severability); Claxton v. Fidelity & Guaranty Fire Corp., 179 Miss. 556, 175 So. 210 (1937)(same); Johns......
  • Rush v. Hartford Mut. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • February 5, 1987
    ...claim with Hartford. The awarding of prejudgment interest is a proper exercise of this court's discretion. Kerr v. State Farm Fire and Casualty, Co., 731 F.2d 227, 229 (4th Cir. 1984); Knowles v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York, 788 F.2d 1038, 1041 (4th The Clerk is directed to send c......
  • 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