Baker v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 December 1982 |
| Parties | Roland Eugene BAKER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. 646 S.W.2d 440 |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
James C. McBroom, Daniel L. Wischhof, Finch & McBroom, Nashville, for plaintiff-appellee.
Philip M. Kirkpatrick, Stewart, Estes & Donnell, Nashville, for defendant-appellant.
Plaintiff brought suit alleging that he was the holder of an insurance policy issued by defendant which covered, among other perils, loss due to theft; that his home was broken into and that several items were stolen; that the loss was reported to defendant and that defendant had refused to pay the loss. He sought recovery for the loss and the penalty provided by T.C.A. Sec. 56-7-105 alleging that defendant's failure to pay was not in "good faith."
Defendant answered admitting that it had issued the policy to plaintiff; that the policy covered theft; and that there was a theft loss at plaintiff's home. Defendant denied that plaintiff was due any amount under the policy because plaintiff had violated and breached the policy by making material misrepresentations which violated certain conditions of the policy.
After an evidentiary hearing the Chancellor found that plaintiff was not entitled to the "bad-faith penalty" but was entitled to recover the sum of $3,514.92 less the $50 deductible for the loss under the policy.
The facts material to our inquiry are as follows:
Plaintiff had resided at 2114 Brookview Drive for seven years. For those seven years and three years prior, he and Steven Ashworth had resided together.
On February 21, 1981, several items of personal property were stolen from plaintiff's home. Included in the items stolen was a Zenith video cassette recorder (VCR).
On February 25, Mickey Brewington, an insurance adjuster employed by defendant, contacted plaintiff by telephone to "get a detailed description of the property taken and how it was taken."
Plaintiff advised Mr. Brewington that he had purchased the VCR from a Cain-Sloan Department Store for cash. He also told Mr. Brewington that all of the items taken in the theft were paid for.
In fact the VCR had been purchased and financed at a Cain-Sloan Department Store by Steven Ashworth. At the time of the theft, there was an outstanding balance in excess of $700 owed to Cain-Sloan.
In March, 1981, Mr. Brewington was told by Mr. Ashworth that he did not own any of the property taken in the theft and did not know if any of the property taken had been financed. Mr. Brewington contacted Cain-Sloan and determined that they had no record of a VCR being purchased by plaintiff but they did have a record of Mr. Ashworth's purchase.
Mr. Brewington then contacted plaintiff by phone and informed him that the claim was being denied because of "the fact of misrepresentation of the ownership of the property that he was claiming was his."
Plaintiff then informed Mr. Brewington that the VCR had been a gift from Mr. Ashworth. Defendant reiterated its denial of the claim.
At trial plaintiff testified that he did not tell Mr. Brewington the VCR was a gift from Mr. Ashworth because he wished to keep his lifestyle private and also did not want Mr. Brewington to harass Mr. Ashworth.
Mr. Ashworth testified that he had purchased the VCR from Cain-Sloan; that he still owed Cain-Sloan for the VCR; and that he had made a gift of the VCR to plaintiff shortly after its purchase from Cain-Sloan.
No other proof was offered relative to whether the VCR was or was not a gift from Ashworth to plaintiff.
The Chancellor found that the VCR was a gift from Mr. Ashworth to plaintiff. That finding comes to this Court accompanied by a presumption of correctness unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn.R.App.P. 13(d). Our review of the record fails to disclose that the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.
The first issue presented by defendant for our determination is as follows "Whether the Court erred in holding that Defendant failed to carry the burden of establishing the affirmative defense of fraud or false swearing."
The insurance policy issued to plaintiff by defendant contains the following condition:
Concealment, Fraud. This entire policy shall be void if either before or after a loss, the insured has willfully concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance concerning this insurance or the subject thereof, or the interest of the insured therein, or in case of any fraud or false swearing by the insured relating thereto.
In the instant case the facts are clear. Plaintiff made misrepresentations: (1) he informed the adjuster that he had purchased the VCR when, in fact, it was a gift, and (2) he told the adjuster, and signed a proof of loss indicating, that all the property was paid for when, in fact, Cain-Sloan held a security interest in the VCR.
It is also clear that the misrepresentations as to the VCR were willful. In order that his lifestyle would not be revealed, plaintiff told the adjuster that he had purchased the VCR. This was not an honest mistake or lapse of memory.
Were these willful misrepresentations made with intent to defraud defendant?
The Chancellor found that plaintiff received the VCR as a gift from Mr. Ashworth. Whether he had purchased the VCR or received it as a gift, it was insured property under the policy. Plaintiff was entitled to be paid for the loss. Plaintiff's informing the Company that the VCR was bought by him for cash instead of being received as a gift could in no way work a fraud upon defendant. Defendant owed plaintiff for the loss in either event.
Mr. Brewington, on cross-examination, testified as follows:
Q. All right, sir. Now, if that had been true, would Nationwide have paid his claim for gifts that he had received also?
A. If it could have been verified through Mr. Ashworth and we could have tied down that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, No. W2009-00931-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 4/13/2010), W2009-00931-COA-R3-CV.
...made with intent to deceive the insurer. Joyner, 1993 WL 295049, at *5; Nix, 666 S.W.2d at 464; Baker v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 646 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982). The insurer has the burden of proving that the insured intended to deceive or defraud the Page 18 Wassom v. Stat......
-
Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Entm't, Inc.
...as the equipment existed; and here Defendants contend the equipment existed. (ECF No. 65 at PageID 1681 (citing Baker v. Nationwide, 646 S.W.2d 440, 442 (Tenn. App. 1982).) Second, Defendants assert that Hanover made its policy payout determinations before receiving the fraudulent documenta......
-
Sexton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
...Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 02A01-9301-CV-00021, 1993 WL 295049, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. W.S. Aug. 4, 1993); Baker v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 646 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982). Intent to deceive is also a question of fact. Joyner, 1993 WL 295049, at *5. In Wassom v. State Farm Mut. A......
-
Wilder v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co.
...of North America, 675 S.W.2d 476 (Tenn.App.1984); Nix v. Sentry Insurance, 666 S.W.2d 462 (Tenn.App.1983); Baker v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 646 S.W.2d 440 (Tenn.App.1982). Fraud involves a question of fact, and the facts must show an intent to deceive on a material matter. Womack v......