After a fire destroyed the plaintiff's house, the plaintiff made a claim on
his homeowners insurance policy with the defendant insurer. The defendant
investigated and ultimately denied the claim. The plaintiff sued, and in
response, the defendant asserted that the insurance contract was void due to
the plaintiff making misrepresentations during the defendant's claim
investigation.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant based on the
contract being void. In Kelly v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 312
Or. App. 361 (June 16, 2021), the Oregon Court of Appeals was asked to
interpret the statutory fraud language in the policy.
The Facts of the Case
In 2017, there was a large house that was insured under a homeowners policy
issued by the defendant to the plaintiff and his then-wife. A fire completely
destroyed the house on May 16, 2017. The fire marshal was unable to determine
the cause of the fire but could not rule out that it originated at the
grinder.
The plaintiff filed an insurance claim. The defendant made an advance
payment of $10,000 to the plaintiff for loss of personal property. An adjuster
interviewed the plaintiff on May 22, taking an initial recorded statement.
During the interview, the plaintiff represented that he made $150,000 annually
as a general contractor with his business, Kelly and Sons Construction, Inc. He
also represented that, in the 5 months before the fire, he had been staying in
the property's guesthouse or with his girlfriend.
After the interview, the defendant set loss reserves on the plaintiff's
claim. It also began paying "Additional Living Expense" (ALE)
benefits to cover the cost of alternative housing.
In connection with the ALE benefits, the plaintiff represented to the
defendant that he had moved into the "Boxwood property" on June 19,
lived there until August 31, and incurred $1,500 per month in rental charges to
live there. The defendant paid the plaintiff $3,600 in ALE benefits based on
that information.
Meanwhile, on June 22, the defendant's special investigations unit began
investigating concerns of potential fraud in connection with the insurance
claim and, in November 2017, interviewed the plaintiff. The defendant's
investigation revealed that the plaintiff owned the Boxwood property, that he
had not moved into or lived at that property after the fire, and that he had
sold the property on August 29, 2017. Further, the defendant learned during its
investigation—and the plaintiff admitted in his November interview—that the
plaintiff had been in jail from December 29, 2016, until May 10, 2017, not
living in the Aumsville guesthouse or with his girlfriend. The defendant also
learned—and the plaintiff then admitted—that the plaintiff's construction
company had last been active in 2014, that the plaintiff had made about $51,000
doing construction work for other companies in 2016, and that the plaintiff had
not received any 2017 income as of May 2017.
In May 2018, the defendant denied coverage on the plaintiff's insurance
claim. The defendant invoked the "concealment, misrepresentation, or
fraud" provision of the plaintiff's homeowners insurance policy, which
the defendant asserted applied because the plaintiff had wilfully concealed
facts and made misrepresentations regarding his income, work history,
incarceration, residency, and the ALE claims.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant. The trial court
concluded that the plaintiff's misrepresentation about where he was living
during the 5 months before the fire was material and that the defendant relied
on it in paying $37,666 in ALE benefits and setting loss reserves, which was
yet another reason that the policy was void.
The Court's Analysis
ORS 742.208 requires a fire insurance policy to contain a provision
regarding concealment, misrepresentations, or fraud by the insured. The
provision in the plaintiff's fire insurance policy with the defendant is
identical in substance to the statutory language.
The purpose of ORS 742.208 is to discourage insurance fraud. That includes
discouraging false claims concerning the amount of loss or the circumstances of
the fire and false statements that prevent or hamper the investigation of the
claim. Only "material" misrepresentations void a policy. How the
materiality requirement applies in practice depends on the context in which a
misrepresentation is made. In the context of claim fraud, a misrepresentation
is material if it is relevant and germane to the insurer's investigation as
it was then proceeding.
A misrepresentation after the loss as to a single material fact will forfeit
the entire insurance contract. Thus, under longstanding Oregon law, the general
maxim disfavoring forfeiture of insurance contracts is trumped by the
concealment, misrepresentation, or fraud policy provision required by ORS
742.208.
Whether a $3,600 misrepresentation is "material," since there is
no factual dispute that the plaintiff misrepresented that he was renting the
Boxwood property and that that misrepresentation had a monetary value of
$3,600. In this case, where the statements were admittedly made and the finding
of their falsity was not attacked on appeal, the question seems to be purely
one of law.
False sworn answers are material if they might have affected the attitude
and action of the insurer. They are equally material if they may be said to
have been calculated either to discourage, mislead, or deflect the
company's investigation in any area that might seem to the company, at that
time, a relevant or productive area to investigate. Under that standard, the
plaintiff's misrepresentation that he was living at the Boxwood property
from June 19 to August 31, 2017, at the cost of $1,500 monthly, was material in
that it undoubtedly might have affected the attitude and action of the
defendant, particularly with respect to paying ALE benefits under the
policy.
The Oregon Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court did not err in
concluding that the plaintiff's misrepresentation that he was living at the
Boxwood property at the cost of $1,500 per month was material for purposes of
the "concealment, misrepresentation, or fraud" provision in his
insurance policy.
Forfeiture of the entire policy is undoubtedly a harsh penalty. However, it
is the penalty that the legislature appears to have intended in enacting ORS
742.208, and it is what the policy requires under existing case law.
Conclusion
The Oregon Court of Appeals applied the law as written. Presenting a false
claim to an insurer with the knowledge that it is false voids the entire
policy. The amount of the fraud is irrelevant. An insured cannot say: "You
caught me on the $3,600 claim but must pay the legitimate part of my
claim." To do so would emasculate the reason for the concealment,
misrepresentation, or fraud provision of the policy. A little fraud voids the
entire contract just as easily and importantly as a big fraud.
© 2021 Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE