Legal Opinion · Dissent

Barth v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided February 20, 2007No. 4-06-0208Published

1DissentJustice Cook

I respectfully dissent. The jury should have been instructed that a misrepresentation is not material unless the insurer somehow could have relied on it. I would reverse and remand for a new trial.

It is incorrect to say that “fraud” has no application to this case. The clause upon which State Farm relies to void this policy is captioned “Concealment or Fraud.” Innocent misrepresentations are not enough; the misrepresentations must be fraudulent or something like it. We should deal with a “Concealment or Fraud” clause carefully. In the context of common-law fraud, the law presumes that…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Avery v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Johnson Press of America, Inc. v. Northern Insurance Co. of New YorkAppellate Court of Illinois · 2003
  4. Wasik v. Allstate InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 2004
  5. Nagel-Taylor Automotive Supplies, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1980

1 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