Jennifer Dietz, Author at Keogh Cox

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently ruled a plaintiff’s bad faith insurance claim was prescribed where the policy at issue required actions to be brought within two years after the date of loss.

In Phyllis Wilson v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, the plaintiff asserted a bad faith claim against an insurer. The applicable policy of insurance provided “[n]o action can be brought unless the policy provisions have been complied with and the action is started within two years after the date of loss.” The plaintiff alleged that the insurer failed to timely tender payments for losses that occurred on August 27, 2020 and October 20, 2020. However, the plaintiff did not file her suit unit January 9, 2023.

Prior to the Wilson decision, courts frequently relied on the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision in Smith v. Citadel Ins. Co., which held that actions against insurers under Louisiana’s bad faith statutes are subject to a ten-year prescriptive period. In Smith, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a bad faith action against an insurer was a delictual or tort action subject to a one-year prescriptive period, or a contractual action, which is subject to a ten-year prescriptive period under Louisiana law. The Smith court concluded that the duty of good faith owed by the insurer to the insured “emanates from the contract between the parties” such that the “insured’s cause of action is personal and subject to a ten-year prescriptive period.”

In Wilson, the Louisiana Supreme Court examined whether Smith required the Court to uphold a ten-year prescriptive period for bad faith actions even though the insurance policy at issue prohibited actions brought more than two years after the date of loss. The Wilson court ultimately concluded that an action against an insurer brought more than two years after the date of loss is prescribed where the applicable insurance policy set a term of two years for filing a claim against the insurer.

To reach this conclusion, the Wilson court cited Taranto v. Louisiana citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., which held “in the absence a statutory prohibition, a clause in an insurance policy fixing a reasonable time to institute suit is valid.” The Wilson court then turned to the applicable statute and noted that La. R.S. 22:868(B) “expressly provides that no policy ‘shall contain any condition, stipulation, or agreement limiting right of action against the insurer to a period of less than twenty-four months next after the inception of the loss when the claim is a first-party claim…’” The Wilson court noted the two-year limitation in the applicable policy was consistent with La. R.S. 22:868(B).

The court’s ruling supports the argument that policy provisions requiring actions to be filed within two years of the date of loss are enforceable. However, the Court did not disturb its holding in Smith, noting the Smith case was factually distinguishable because it did not involve a policy that contained a contractual limitation on the insured’s institution of suits.

References:

Phyllis Wilson v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, No. 2023-CC-01320 (La. 1/10/2024) (per curiam), 2024 WL 108714.

Smith v. Citadel Ins. Co., 2019-00052 (La. 10/22/19), 285 So.3d 1062.

Taranto v. Louisiana citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 2010-0105 (La. 3/15/11), 62 So.3d 721, 728.

Many insurance policies contain a Concealment or Fraud provision that provides no coverage where the insured concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance, engaged in fraudulent conduct, or made false statements related to the insurance.

But will a court enforce the Concealment or Fraud provision to deny an insured recovery on an otherwise covered peril? According to a recent decision out of the Eastern District of Louisiana, the answer is YES.

In Fahimipour v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company, the plaintiffs sought contractual and extra-contractual damages from their insurance carrier for damages to their residential property allegedly sustained during Hurricane Zeta. After a bench trial, Judge Morgan concluded Plaintiffs’ application for insurance included a false statement made with knowledge of its falsity and voided the insurance policy from inception, in its entirety.

Citing Talbert v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., the Fahimipour court noted that “Under Louisiana law, an insurance policy is voided entirely and from its inception when the insured makes a material misrepresentation in the application for insurance with the intent to deceive the insurer.” The insurer must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the following elements in order to succeed on such a claim:

(1) the insured made a false statement;

(2) the false statement was material; and

(3) the false statement was made with intent to deceive.

With regard to the first factor, the Court found the insureds obtained and read an inspection report in connection with their purchase of the property. They “were concerned enough about the findings of the inspectors to contact their real estate agent” about the issues. The insureds represented in their insurance application that the property was well maintained, and free of damage, debris, and liability hazards, despite the extensive contradictory findings in the inspection report.

Regarding the second element, the carrier’s in-house expert testified that the insurer would not have bound coverage if the application contained the information from the inspection report. Therefore, the court found the insured’s false statements were material.

The third element – intent to deceive – “must be determined from the surrounding circumstances indicating the insured’s knowledge of the falsity of the representations made in the application and his recognition of the materiality of his representations, or from circumstances which create a reasonable assumption that the insured recognized the materiality.”

In finding the insurer established the third element, the Court noted the insureds were “sophisticated users of insurance.” Evidence showed the insureds previously purchased houses for renovation and resale, owned multiple properties, submitted insurance applications before, and also submitted claims for coverage on at least three prior occasions.

Ultimately, the Court denied plaintiffs any recovery for alleged hurricane damages because of the misrepresentations they made in their application for insurance coverage.

Prior to Fahimipour,Courts had found that post-loss misrepresentations may also void a policy. In Roach v. Allstate Indem. Co., 476 Fed. App’x 778, 779 (5^th Cir. 2012), the plaintiff’s house was damaged in a fire. The Fifth Circuit upheld a summary judgment that voided the plaintiff’s policy after he submitted a falsified claim that included contents not located on inspection following a fire at the residence.

The policy at issue in Roach included a similar Concealment or Fraud provision that stated the policy would provide no coverage if the insured misrepresented any material fact before or after a loss. In granting summary judgment, the district court applied the same three factors used in the Fahimipour case to find the plaintiff made material misrepresentations in his personal property claim when he claimed items not located on inspection.

While the policy in Fahimipour was voided in part because the insureds were “sophisticated users of insurance,” it remains to be seen whether a Louisiana court will void coverage based on a similar provision brought by a less sophisticated insured under a different set of facts.

However, the Fahimipour and Roach decisions show that a court can void a policy, from its inception, because of an insured’s misrepresentations, whether they occur in connection with the application for the policy or after a loss. These rulings also suggest that Louisiana law recognizes an insured also has a reciprocal duty of good faith in its relationship with its insurer.

Case References: Behnaz Fahimipour, et al. v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company, 2022 WL 16833693 (E.D. La. Nov. 9, 2022); Roach v. Allstate Indem. Co., 476 Fed. App’x 778, 779 (5^th Cir. 2012); Talbert v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 971 So.2d 1206 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2007).