AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
JOYCE IRENE EDDINGER, FORMERLY JOYCE IRENE CHAFIN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Auto-Owners Insurance denied coverage for a total loss fire, arguing that the fraudulent conduct of one co-insured (Mr. Chafin) voided the entire homeowner's policy. The court held that fraud by a co-insured does not void coverage for an innocent co-insured, reversing the insurer's position and affirming summary judgment for Mrs. Eddinger.
The fraudulent act of a co-insured does not void the policy protection for an innocent co-insured. The court held that fraud liability is several and separate rather than joint, and cannot be imputed to an innocent co-insured who is not implicated in the fraud.
[1] The fraudulent act of a named co-insured does not void the insurance policy protection for an innocent co-insured.
[2] Ambiguous insurance policy language is construed in favor of the insured to provide coverage.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The question presented is whether the fraudulent act of a named co-insured voids the policy protection to an innocent co-insured. We answer the question in the negative and affirm.”
Establishes the core legal question and the court's holding that innocent co-insureds retain coverage despite a co-insured's fraud.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMr. and Mrs. Chafin obtained a homeowner's insurance policy together in 1973. They divorced in 1974 but retained joint ownership of the home as tenant…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Interpretation Of Insurance Policy Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Judge.
The question presented is whether the fraudulent act of a named co-insured voids the policy protection to an innocent co-insured. We answer the question in the negative and affirm.
Mr. Chafin and his wife, Joyce Irene Chafin, (now known as Joyce Irene Eddinger) were married in 1973. The then husband and wife secured a standard homeowner’s insurance policy with appellant for their jointly owned home. The Chafins were divorced in 1974. Ownership of the home continued in their joint names as tenants in common. The original policy was thereafter renewed to insure their continuing interests as such co-owners. In 1976 a fire totally destroyed the insured premises.
The insurance company denied Mr. Chaf-in’s claim on the ground that he had committed fraud and was responsible for the fire. Mr. Chafin brought an action for damages under the insurance policy. Mrs. Eddinger intervened as a party defendant and then asserted a cross-claim against the insurance company. It was stipulated that she was innocent of any fraud involving the fire.
The lower court entered summary judgment for Mrs. Eddinger on her cross-claim from which appellant brings this appeal.
Appellant contends that Mr. Chafin’s fraudulent act voided any protection for Mrs. Eddinger. Appellant points to the following policy provision:
[The] entire policy shall be void if, whether before or after a loss, the insured has willfully concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstances 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. Appellant argues that it is clear from the language of the entire policy that the insurance company intended to insure Mr. Chaf-in and any named insured jointly. In no case, argues the appellant, was the insurance severable so as to provide separate, insurance of the respective interests of two or more joint owners and co-insureds.
We disagree. In construing the insurance policy, the question whether the coverage was joint or several must be construed in favor of the appellee since there is no clear indication to the contrary. The above policy language is capable of more than one possible interpretation. In such case the interpretation should be given which provides coverage to the insured. See, Feldman v. Central National Insurance Company of Omaha, 279 So. 2d 897 (Fla.3d DCA 1973).
There is no Florida case law directly on point. However, we are persuaded by those cases from other jurisdictions to the effect that the fraud of a co-insured does not void the coverage of the innocent co-insured. In Howell v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, 130 N.J.Sup. 350, 327 A. 2d 240 (N.J.App.1974) the court held that the fraud of the co-insured husband did not void the policy as to the co-insured wife. The' court stated:
The significant factor is that the responsibility or liability for the fraud — here, the arson — is several and separate rather than joint, and the husband’s fraud cannot be attributed or imputed to the wife who is not implicated therein.
327 A. 2d at 242. See Mercantile Trust Co. v. New York Underwriters Insurance Co., 376 F. 2d 502 (7th Cir. 1967); Hoyt v. New Hampshire Fire Insurance Co., 92 N.H. 242, 29 A. 2d 121 (1942).
The summary judgment for the appellee is affirmed.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Everglades Marina, Inc. v. Am. E. Dev. Corp., 374 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1979)…he seller. See section 672.403(1), Florida Statutes (1977). We note that a similar insurance coverage issue has been resolved in accordance with our holding by the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Eddinger, 366 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), as well as by courts in other jurisdictions. Howell v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co., 130 N.J.Super. 350, 327 A. 2d 240 (N.J.App.1974); Mercantile Trust Co. v. New York Underwriters Insurance Co., 376 F. 2d 502 (7th Cir. 1967); Hoy…
-
Taisyer Kattoum and Saadia Kattoum v. NEW Hampshire Indem. Co., 968 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…eparate coverage of the respective interests of two or more joint owners and co-insureds. If the policy provides joint coverage, the fraud or misconduct of one insured can be imputed to an “innocent co-insured.” See Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Eddinger, 366 So. 2d 123-24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). However, Florida’s courts have held that the intentional misconduct of one insured will only be imputed to an innocent co-insured where the insurance policy contains a clear statement that the misconduct of one.insured abrogat…
-
Overton v. The Progressive Ins. Co. & Jeffrey A. Overton, 585 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…ion to conclude that, depending upon the policy language, rights under an insurance policy may be several, rather than joint interests. Dolcy; see also Vance v. Pekin Insurance Co., 457 N.W. 2d 589 (Iowa 1990); Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Eddinger, 366 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Winter v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 96 Misc.2d 497, 409 N.Y.S.2d 85 (N.Y.Sup.1978); Howell v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, 130 N.J.Super. 350, 327 A. 2d 240 (N.J.Sup. 1974). This approach requires a court to determine whet…1 / 3
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Feldman v. The Cent. Nat'l Ins. Co. OF Omaha, 279 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Mercantile Tr. Co. v. NEW York Underwriters Ins. Co., 376 F.2d 502 (7th Cir. 1967)