Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0328 The mobile home was a 1974 Cosmo, 65' x 12'. and was purchased by Plaintiff new on February 25, 1974 for a arice of $10,342,55. (P-5) A mobile home dealer for the past sixteen ~ years testified that a similar new mobile home at todav's ~ ~ _market_would cost approximately 513,000 to $14,000, and he agreed that this mobile home in 1974 would have sold for ao- proximately $10,040~ if iC had extras. Therefore, the full . replacement cost of Plaintiff's ~obile home as of the date of . i the fire is determined to be $12,000. However, the limit of liability in the insurance policy for the mobile home is 510,000. In addition, at the present time, there is a lien on this mobile home to Com~nercial Credit Corporation, and the terms of the . ~ policy provide that any loss under this policy is payable to them as their interest may appear at the time of loss. ' Defendant claims that the coverage under its policy has been rendered void because of Plaintiff's willful misrepresenta- tion of material facts and/or circumstances regarding the loss. Defendant attempted to prove that Plaintiff knowingly and wi11- fully overestimated the value of her propertv in.the~mobile home in her proof o€ loss whic~ she furnished to the Defendant. I8 F1a. Jur., Insurance, §798 states: i f Where an insured knowingly and willfully ~ ~ overestimates in his proof of loss the value - ~ of the property destroyed, with the intention ~ of deceiving the insurer, such-overvaluation - ' will avoid the policy and d~efeat any right of ~ ~ the insured to recover thereon. But an over- valuation made through mistake or inadvertence does not amount to fraud sufficient to avoid the policy. Mistakes in calculations, exag- gerations in the amount of the claim, or doubtful assertions which arise from the good- faith judgment of the insured will not in- validate the policy." In this case, Plaintiff did make mistakes as to some of - the appliances, listing them as ".G.E." when in fact at the trial, ~ were "Kenmore" sold b Sears. In another in- ~ it appears the_y , y . ~ ~ stance, Plaintif~ listed a microwave oven as a"radaranpe ~ ~ ~ Amana", whereas, it turned out that the microwave oven was manu- ~ ~ ' ~ factured by another comnany. The most obvious mistake was a ~ . ~ _ -3- ~ . - 8001( ~ f~Cf - r~ - ~ ~s ~ ~ _ " - - ~ µ ,uC~ r2~T"~`r'~""'!'S , ~ "'._,;:.e"„j - _ . . _ ' "'_`''~.'i_3 _ .