Duke v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 79-1677
| Decision Date | 21 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1677,79-1677 |
| Citation | 617 F.2d 509 |
| Parties | Ronald C. DUKE, Appellant, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Cliff Jackson, Solloway & Jackson, Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.
William H. Sutton, Friday, Eldredge & Clark, Little Rock, Ark., for appellee; Donald H. Bacon and Overton S. Anderson, Little Rock, Ark., on brief.
Before BRIGHT, ROSS and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges.
A fire occurring on December 24, 1974, destroyed plaintiff-appellant Ronald Duke's Garland County, Arkansas, home. Duke subsequently brought this suit to recover under a fire insurance policy issued by defendant-appellee Hartford Fire Insurance Company (Hartford). Hartford admitted that the policy was in effect and applied to the fire in question. Hartford denied liability, however, and defended on the grounds that Duke or his agent intentionally burned the dwelling, and that certain false statements made by Duke voided the policy.
At trial, Duke admitted to making misrepresentations to Hartford during the course of its investigation of the fire. Duke's admitted misrepresentations included, inter alia, statements to Hartford that he had no knowledge of the cause and origin of the fire, that he was on a trip to Oklahoma at the time of the fire, and that he had neither suffered burns nor received medical treatment for burns around the time of the fire.
Duke's fire insurance policy contained the following provision:
Concealment, fraud. This entire policy shall be void if, whether 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.
The district court determined that Duke's admitted misrepresentations fell within this provision of the fire insurance policy. Accordingly, the court granted Hartford's motion for a directed verdict at the close of Duke's case and entered a judgment dismissing the action. Duke brings this appeal.
This is a diversity case in which state law governs. In such cases we give great weight to the district court's view of state law. E. g., Foremost Insurance Co. v. Sheppard, 610 F.2d 551, 554 (8th Cir. 1979). Appellant has not shown the district court's construction of the insurance contract to be inconsistent with the case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wollman v. Gross
...under South Dakota law, great weight is given to the local district court's view of state law. See, e. g., Duke v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 617 F.2d 509, 510 (8th Cir. 1980); Foremost Insurance Co. v. Sheppard, 610 F.2d 551, 554 (8th Cir. 1979). Wollman has not shown that the district c......
-
Long v. Insurance Co. of North America
...40 L.Ed.2d 118 (1974). This rule has been applied to insureds' misrepresentations to insurance companies. E.g., Duke v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 617 F.2d 509 (8th Cir. 1980) (upholding trial court's directed verdict for insurance company); Tenore v. American and Foreign Ins. Co., 256 F.2d 79......
-
Willis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
...the defense," Edmiston v. Schellenger, 343 So. 2d 465, 467 (Miss. 1977), cited with approval in Duke v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 617 F.2d 509, 510 (8th Cir. 1980) (per curiam) (applying Arkansas law). The Willises also argue that State Farm made no showing that it had actually relied on......
-
CHAPTER 12
...(Tex. App. 1999).[13] Edmiston v. Schellenger, 343 So. 2d 465, 467 (Miss. 1977), cited with approval in Duke v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 617 F.2d 509, 510 (8th Cir. 1980) (per curiam) (applying Arkansas law).[14] Willis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. 219 F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 2000).[15] N.J.S.A.......