Shoemaker v. Commonwealth Bank

700 A.2d 1003 (1997)

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

Shoemaker (P) obtained a $25,000 mortgage on their home with Commonwealth (D). The agreement required that P carry insurance on the property. P allowed the insurance policy on their home to expire, and the home was later destroyed by fire. P alleges that D sent a letter to them informing them that if they did not purchase new insurance, D might be forced to buy one for them and add the premium to the loan balance. A phone call from D to P was made informing P that D would obtain the insurance if P did not do so. P claims that they assumed D had obtained the insurance. They also received no further contact from D regarding that matter. D admits that it sent the letter but denies the content of the phone call. D did obtain insurance for the home but let it lapse and further sent a letter to P reminding them of their obligation to have such insurance. When the house burnt down, P sued D alleging causes of action in fraud, promissory estoppel and breach of contract. The basis for all of them was D’s alleged failure to obtain insurance coverage for the home. D filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted D's motion. Even if D had promised to obtain insurance, it made no representation regarding the duration of that coverage. The court concluded that because D had actually obtained insurance, even though the policy later expired, it had fulfilled its promise to P. It reasoned that D had made no misrepresentation and breached no promise, and summary judgment was warranted. The trial court granted D's motion. P appealed.