Republic Ins. Co. v. Jernigan
| Decision Date | 21 November 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84CA0068,84CA0068 |
| Citation | 719 P.2d 331 |
| Parties | REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert H. JERNIGAN, and Gayle S. Jernigan, Defendants-Appellees. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Henderson & Streelman, Jack D. Henderson, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
Allen, Rogers, Metcalf & Vahrenwald, Donald E. Johnson, Jr., Fort Collins, for defendants-appellees.
Republic Insurance Company (Republic) appeals from a trial court judgment finding that coverage existed under Republic's insurance policy as to Gayle S. Jernigan (Mrs. Jernigan), but finding that no coverage existed under the policy as to her husband, Robert H. Jernigan (Mr. Jernigan). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
A homeowner's insurance policy issued by Republic to the Jernigans was in full force and effect on April 26, 1982, when the Jernigans' dwelling and personal property were damaged by fire and smoke. Republic denied coverage to the Jernigans on the grounds that they had breached the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in that Mr. Jernigan had unlawfully and intentionally set fire to the dwelling and that the Jernigans had intentionally concealed or misrepresented the extent and value of the loss to their dwelling and personal property.
Republic commenced an action for declaratory judgment and a five-day trial ensued. Although the trial court found that Mr. Jernigan had intentionally set the fire, it further found that:
"There was no intentional or fraudulent representation of a nature whereby coverage should be voided ... [t]here was no concealment ... [t]here was no misrepresentation in regard to the cost of repairs to the dwelling that was intentional, purposeful, or fraudulent ... [there was no intent] to defraud or misrepresent...."
Republic first contends that the record does not support the court's finding that Mrs. Jernigan did not intentionally misrepresent the cost of repairs to her home and the value of the damage to personal property. Republic's contention specifically focuses on the element of Mrs. Jernigan's intent to conceal or misrepresent the costs and values. Yet Republic concedes that factual findings of the trial court, sitting without a jury, are not to be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous and unsupported by the record. See Gebhardt v. Gebhardt, 198 Colo. 28, 595 P.2d 1048 (1979). Though the evidence is controverted, the trial court's findings are not clearly erroneous and are supported by the record. We therefore affirm its findings. See Western Assurance Co. v. Bronstein, 77 Colo. 408, 236 P. 1013 (1925).
Republic also argues that Mrs. Jernigan is not entitled to coverage when the spouse is found to have intentionally set the fire. Commercial Union Insurance Co. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 546 F.Supp. 543 (D.Colo.1982), is persuasive when applied to this argument.
The court in Commercial Union addressed this question, applied Colorado law, and analyzed the two distinct lines of authority. There the court concluded that the rights and obligation under a homeowner's insurance policy, similar in pertinent part to the policy here, are several and not joint. Therefore, an innocent spouse may recover even though the co-insured spouse is at fault. Commercial Union Insurance Co. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., supra.
Similar to the situation in Commercial Union, Mr. and Mrs. Jernigan were listed as the "named insured," the policy defined "insured" as including resident relatives, and there was no language in the policy indicating that it was issued to a single entity, nor was there any language stating that the misconduct of any insured would void the policy. Therefore, as in Commercial Union, the trial court here properly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Republic Ins. Co. v. Jernigan, 86SC13
...a separate insured who was entitled to coverage under the terms of the insurance policy. The court of appeals in Republic Ins. Co. v. Jernigan, 719 P.2d 331 (Colo.App.1985), concluded that the trial court's findings that Gayle S. Jernigan did not intentionally misrepresent the costs of repa......
-
Chacon v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.
...by all insureds, "nor was there any language stating that the misconduct of any insured would void the policy." Republic Ins. Co. v. Jernigan, 719 P.2d 331, 333 (Colo.App.1985).3 See, for example, Arenson v. National Automobile & Casualty Ins. Co., 45 Cal.2d 81, 286 P.2d 816 (1955) ("the in......
- State v. Stiles
-
American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bowser
...entitled to recover if the rights and obligations under the policy are several and no policy exclusion applies, Republic Insurance Co. v. Jernigan, 719 P.2d 331 (Colo.App.1985), aff'd, 753 P.2d 229 (Colo.1988), we disagree that the instruction requires reversal in this The Bowsers neither o......
-
Chapter 7 - § 7.4 • TENANCY IN COMMON
...(Colo. 1930).[120] Nippel v. Hammond, 4 Colo. 211 (1878); Sanders v. Knapp, 674 P.2d 385 (Colo. App. 1983); Republic Ins. Co. v. Jernigan, 719 P.2d 331 (Colo. App. 1985); In re Lambert, 34 B.R. 41 (Bankr. D. Colo. 1983); In re Lower, 311 B.R. 888 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2004).[121] City ofTellurid......
-
Chapter 9 - § 9.1 • IN GENERAL
...in Colorado results in the property being held in joint tenancy. C.R.S. § 38-31-201(3). --------Notes:[1] Republic Ins. Co. v. Jernigan, 719 P.2d 331 (Colo. App. 1985), aff'd and remanded, 753 P.2d 229 (Colo. 1988); First Nat'l Bank of Southglenn v. Energy Fuels Corp., 618 P.2d 1115 (Colo. ......
-
Chapter 7 - EXHIBIT 7A • UNITY OF INTERESTS OF JOINT TENANTS
...App. 1984).[5] First Nat'l Bank of Southglenn v. Energy Fuels Corp., 618 P.2d 1115 (Colo. 1980).[6] Accord Republic Ins. Co. v. Jernigan, 719 P.2d 331 (Colo. App. 1985); In re Lambert, 34 B.R. 41 (Bankr. D. Colo. 1983) ("undivided interest in the whole property").[7] 2 Reeves, Real Property......