Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Dale Neidenbach v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided November 16, 2016No. 16-1400Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBright, Circuit Judge

I concur in affirming the district court’s decision to void the personal property coverage of the Neidenbachs’ homeowner’s policy. I believe Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Scott, 486 F.3d 418 (8th Cir. 2007), controls the outcome in this case. I read Scott as holding that a large discrepancy between an insured’s valuation of personal property in a bankruptcy proceeding and the valuation of the same property in an insurance claim—absent evidence the bankruptcy petition was inaccurate or the amounts claimed in the insurance proof of loss resulted from mistake or inadvertence—establishes a…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Mader v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011
  2. Loehner v. Home Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1852
  3. Koontz v. Hannibal Savings & InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1868
  4. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Portia ScottCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2007
  5. Childers v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1990

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API