Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. v. Fox

361 F.2d 1 (10th Cir. 1966)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P contracted with D for fire insurance. A fire occurred. There seems to be no doubt that the fire was the result of arson although no one has been prosecuted for that crime. Under the contract, P was required to file a timely proof of loss. P was aware of the fire within a few hours after it occurred. D referred the case to G.A.B. for adjustment. Two agents of G.A.B., named McMaster and Barnes, arrived at the motel and informed them they represented G.A.B. The adjusters then asked P to sign a 'non-waiver' agreement which P declined to do. On the next day, March 26th, a Mr. Foster, an adjuster for G.A.B., took charge of the adjustment. Foster persuaded P to sign the non-waiver agreement on March 26th even though their attorney apparently advised against it. The non-waiver agreement provided that no action of the insurer in investigating the loss would waive any conditions of the policy and that no representative of the company has any authority to waive any conditions of the policy unless such waiver be in writing. Foster supplied P with inventory sheets with instructions to itemize the contents of the motel that were damaged. On the night of March 26th, P was taken to the hospital with a heart attack and remained there until April 7th. The sales agent for the insurer assisted Mrs. P in preparing an inventory of the damaged contents. P returned from the hospital and completed this inventory by filling in the value of the damaged property. On May 5th, Foster returned to the motel. Foster presented a complete inventory of losses, including an estimated dollar value and also gave some bids made by various companies to clean up the damage. P then presented an estimate of about $96,000 from the Rogers Construction Company to rebuild the damaged units, but Foster rejected this because it was a lump sum bid and not in detail. On May 12, a Mr. Wyatt from the Underwriters Salvage Company and Mr. Richman from a furniture company visited were sent by G.A.B. Wyatt found no discrepancies in the inventory and found it most complete. On May 15th Foster, accompanied by Mr. Hammond of the Hammond Construction Company visited the motel. They spent several hours measuring and sketching the burned units of the property and then departed. Apparently, no discussion of loss occurred on this visit. On June 3rd. Foster accused P of not complying with the policy in substantiating the losses. Foster handed P a letter with a blank proof of loss form attached and told him he was extending the proof of loss to July 3rd. The letter set forth the policy requirements in the event of loss 4 and pointed out that although the sixty days for filing the proof of loss had expired, if the proof of loss was filed before July 3rd, no objection would be made. It was signed: Connecticut Fire Insurance Company, By G.A.B. per P.C. Foster, General Adjuster. P submitted the proof of loss on June 6, 1964. D refused to settle the claim. P sued D. D then rejected P’s proof of loss. The jury found for P. D appealed, claiming in part that P failed to file the proof of loss in a timely manner.