Court Confirms Changes to Direct Action Statute Apply to Cases Filed After August 1, 2024

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).

The Louisiana Legislature recently enacted Act 3, which reflects an effort to address the handling of insurance claims in Louisiana – particularly for catastrophic losses – and define ambiguities in the law. This blog addresses changes to Louisiana’s “bad faith” statutes. Broadly, Act 3 amends and enacts new sections of La. R.S. 22:1892, repeals La. R.S. 22:1973, and enacts La. R.S. 1892.2 to address situations involving catastrophic losses.

Prior Louisiana Bad Faith Statutes – La. R.S. 22:1892 and La. R.S. 22:1973

Previously, La. R.S. 22:1892(A) stated an insurer must:

• Issue payment to an insured within 30 days of receipt of satisfactory proof of loss;
• Pay the amount of a bona fide third-party’s property damage or reasonable medical expenses within 30 days of a written settlement agreement;
• Initiate loss adjustment within 14 days of notice of a non-catastrophic loss or within 30 days of receipt of notice of a catastrophic loss;
• Make a written offer to settle property damage within 30 days of receipt of satisfactory proof of loss.

If an insurer did not follow the requirements of La. R.S. 22:1892(A), the insurer could be required to pay the insured the amount owed under the policy plus a penalty if the insured established that the insurer’s conduct was “arbitrary, capricious and without probable cause.” Courts defined this standard as “vexatious” and without justification. The penalty is calculated as either 50% of the amount owed under the policy or 50% of the difference between the amount owed and a partial tender made by the insurer, if any. Additionally, if the insured established entitlement to the penalty, the insured could also recover attorneys’ fees and costs from the insurer.

Former La. R.S. 22:1973 codified an insurer’s duty of good faith and fair dealing. It set an affirmative duty to adjust claims fairly and promptly and make reasonable efforts to settle claims with the insured, a claimant or both. This general duty of good faith and fair dealing applies only to insureds.^ The statute also outlined six prohibits acts that, if knowingly performed, constituted a violation of the statute. Five of these six prohibited acts applied to both insureds and third-party claimants.^*

If an insured proved a knowing violation of La. R.S. 22:1973, the insurer could be required to pay the amount owed under the policy, damages caused by the insurer’s violation of the statute and a penalty of up to 200% of the damages that the insured or claimant incurred as a result of the breach. Such damages were separate and distinct from the amounts owed under the policy but could extend to anything for which the insured could establish a causal link.˚̃

Revisions to La. R.S. 22:1892

The new revisions enact several important changes. While the text of the new statute should be considered when evaluating any pending or potential claims, a summary is provided here.

1. Time Delays

Under amended and re-enacted La. R.S. 22:1892(A), insurers must generally adhere to the time delays and conduct outlined under the previous law. Under La. R.S. 22:1892.2, for catastrophic events at residential properties, an insurer’s payment is owed within 60 days of receipt of satisfactory proof of loss. For catastrophic losses at non-residential properties, the statute provides an insurer’s payment is owed within 90 days of receipt of satisfactory proof of loss.

Another exception exists when an insurer initiates loss adjustment before the 14-day or 30-day deadline. If this occurs, the insurer’s obligation to issue a written offer to settle is extended by the number of days the insurer initiates loss adjustment before the deadline.

2. Reciprocal Duty of Good Faith

Under the new law, La. R.S. 22:1973 is repealed and the general duty of “good faith and fair dealing” owed by an insurer to its insured and the prohibited insurer conduct previously outlined in La. R.S. 22:1973 is now encompassed within §1892.

The new statute also provides that the insured, the claimant or the representative of the insured/claimant owes the duty of good faith and fair dealing. If an insured fails to comply with affirmative duties under the policy, misrepresents pertinent facts and coverages, submits an estimate that lacks a basis in the evidence or the policy, then the insured’s conduct may be considered in determining whether the insurer’s conduct warrants an award of penalties.

3. Cure Period

For catastrophic losses, the new law states suits may only be brought if the insured first provides the insurer with “cure period notice.” This notice requires that the insured provide the insurer with written notice of the violation, a written formal demand and notice of the facts and circumstances of the dispute. After this notice, several options exist:

1. The insurer can pay the demand in full (along with the insured’s actual expenses and attorney fees no greater than 20%) within 60 days of the notice and extinguish any further cause of action.

• The insurer can issue partial payment on the claim within 60 days of the notice and reduce the penalty owed, if any, by half.

• The insurer can request additional information, but this does not extend the insurer’s other deadlines.

4. Revised Penalty Provisions

The amendments also modify the recoverable penalty. The statute specifies the calculation of the penalty based on the type of violation, the type of property and the type of loss event. Generally, the insured is no longer entitled to recover all damages sustained by a breach of the statute: now the claimant may only recover “proven economic damages.” Notably, the potential for a penalty of up to 200% of the damages sustained as a result of the breach no longer exists.

5. Timing

The law also formalizes and codifies the prescriptive period for claims brought under La. R.S. 22:1892 or La. R.S. 22:1892.2 to two years.

References:

^Theriot v. Midland Risk Ins. Co., 1995-2895 (La. 5/20/97) 694 So.2d 184.

* Team Contractors, L.L.C. v. Waypoint NOLA, L.L.C., 780 Fed.Appx. 132 (5th Cir. 2019).

˚Durio v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 2011-0084 (La. 10/24/11) 74 So.3d 1159.

̃ Audubon Orthopedic and Sports Medicine, APMC v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 2009-0007 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/21/10) 38 So.3d 963.

In Dunlap v. Empire Trading Group, LLC, the buyers of a home sued the seller and the seller’s real estate agent for fraud after the home flooded three times in the first year after they bought the home. The seller was a home-flipper who disclosed two prior flooding incidents, both of which occurred during the ten months the seller owned the home.

However, the plaintiffs later discovered the home had a substantial flooding history when they requested a flood insurance quote from the National Flood Insurance Program. The quote included a report that identified eighteen incidents of flooding and flood insurance claims at the property over the ten years before the plaintiffs purchased their home.

The plaintiffs argued the seller’s agent committed fraud because she concealed her knowledge of previous flood claims. The seller’s agent moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs could not prove that she knew about any of the prior undisclosed flooding incidents. The plaintiffs had no direct evidence to dispute the agent’s defense.

Instead, they argued that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to defeat the motion. They claimed that because the seller had a flood policy on the home, it also would have received the same flood claim history the plaintiffs received in connection with the same federal program. However, the plaintiffs had no evidence to show the seller, or anyone affiliated with the agent’s firm, actually received the flood claim history as they alleged.

Based upon these facts, the court agreed that without evidence that the seller’s agent actually received the flood claim history or otherwise had knowledge of it, the plaintiffs could not carry their burden of proving misrepresentation by the agent.

Case Reference: Dunlap v. Empire Trading Group, LLC, 2021-0180 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/18/21), 331 So. 3d 932.