Bush v. Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Casualty Insurance Co.

Citations: 576 So. 2d 175; 1991 Ala. LEXIS 84Docket: 89-589

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; January 31, 1991; Alabama; State Supreme Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual Casualty Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment to deny a claim from Keith Lamar Bush and Bonnie Dukes Bush under their homeowner’s policy, asserting that the claim arose from arson. Following a trial, the jury sided with Farm Bureau, leading to the Bushes' appeal. On April 25, 1986, multiple fires occurred at the Bushes' home in Lowndes County, culminating in a total loss of the property. The Bushes submitted a sworn proof of loss statement, prompting Farm Bureau to investigate and subsequently file for declaratory relief. The Bushes counterclaimed for fraud and breach of contract, while Farm Bureau raised defenses claiming the Bushes engaged in arson, misrepresented facts in their proof of loss, and provided false information in their insurance application.

During the trial, Farm Bureau successfully moved to exclude evidence related to misrepresentation in the insurance application, which the trial judge deemed potentially confusing. The trial proceeded with claims of arson and misrepresentation from Farm Bureau and the Bushes’ counterclaims of breach of contract and fraud. The trial court denied motions for directed verdicts from both sides, except for Farm Bureau’s motion regarding the Bushes’ bad faith claim. Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Farm Bureau. The Bushes’ motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or a new trial were denied, prompting their appeal. The primary issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting Farm Bureau's motion in limine to exclude the specific evidence regarding the Bushes' insurance application misrepresentation.

The Bushes argue that the trial court's order regarding evidence constituted an error, claiming it was an absolute prohibition. The court has broad discretion in evidentiary rulings, and granting a motion in limine is generally not reversible error unless the non-moving party is denied the chance to present an offer of proof at trial. In this case, the court did not issue an unconditional order, and the Bushes did not make any offer of proof regarding the excluded evidence during the trial. Therefore, the trial judge's decision to grant the motion was upheld.

The Bushes also challenge the admissibility of testimony from Tommy W. Shirley regarding fire debris analysis, claiming a break in the chain of custody. Shirley acknowledged using United Parcel Service to send samples to the laboratory, but he described proper handling procedures, and there was no evidence of tampering. The trial court did not err in allowing this testimony.

Finally, the Bushes contend that the trial court prematurely directed a verdict for Farm Bureau on their bad faith counterclaim without allowing them to present their case. The court highlighted that proving bad faith requires demonstrating the absence of a legitimate reason for the insurer's refusal to pay, which imposes a heavy burden on the plaintiff. The ruling on the directed verdict was deemed appropriate under these circumstances.

The plaintiff is required to demonstrate not just nonpayment by the insurance company but also bad faith in that nonpayment, meaning the insurer had no reasonable grounds for disputing the claim. In this case, Farm Bureau presented evidence that provided an arguable basis for denying the claim, which meant the tort claim could not proceed to a jury. Citing precedent, it was established that if evidence creates a factual dispute regarding the claim's validity, the tort claim fails. Consequently, the trial court's decision to direct a verdict against the Bushes for bad faith was deemed correct.

Regarding the arson defense related to claims by Keith and Bonnie Bush, the insurer must establish this defense by a preponderance of evidence, which can include circumstantial evidence, provided it is sufficiently convincing. The insurer must show (1) evidence of arson by someone, (2) motive from the insured, and (3) evidence implicating the insured. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict for Farm Bureau on the arson defense. The Bushes were last known to leave their house shortly before a fire was observed, and there were multiple fires at the residence on the same day. Witnesses reported seeing Keith Bush throwing items from the windows during the first fire, which was not initially reported by him. The circumstances surrounding the fires led the court to conclude that there was adequate evidence linking the Bushes to the cause of the fire.

Water was drawn from a pool to extinguish flames observed in the Bush house, where Holly took action by kicking a hole in the kitchen ceiling and pouring several buckets of water on the walls. After Mrs. Bush sought assistance for a flashlight, Holly found Mr. Bush hiding in a closet; Bush expressed reluctance to call the fire department again, claiming he had the situation under control. Tommy Shirley, an expert in fire investigation, determined that the fire originated in the foyer, evidenced by burn patterns and "spalling" on the concrete, which indicated that an accelerant, specifically gasoline, was used. Shirley eliminated accidental or natural electrical causes for the fire. Electrician Tom Parsons confirmed that the wiring was not a fire source. Forensic chemist Michael Byron tested debris samples, confirming the presence of burned gasoline from the foyer and negative results from other samples. Rodney Brown, an investigator for Farm Bureau, noted four fires occurred at the Bush house that day and interviewed numerous witnesses, including a 16-year-old neighbor, Stephanie Brooks, who stated that the Bushes removed personal items from the home before leaving. Financial difficulties were indicated, with the Bushes facing three mortgages totaling $69,000 against a monthly income of approximately $1,800, which matched their monthly expenses.

The Bushes submitted a sworn proof-of-loss inventory to Farm Bureau, claiming over $20,000 in purchased items, but evidence suggested the inventory was significantly exaggerated. Notably, they claimed $750 for 55 stuffed animals, which a witness testified had belonged to their daughter since childhood. Additionally, the Bushes listed items such as new business suits, despite Keith Bush not wearing suits to work, and a large number of nightgowns and ladies' shoes. Prior to the fire, they faced a $50,000 lawsuit and represented themselves due to financial constraints. Farm Bureau’s decision to deny their claim was supported by investigations conducted by its special investigator and others. 

The Bushes contended that the trial court made an error in instructing the jury regarding Farm Bureau’s burden of proof on misrepresentation. After the judge’s initial charge, potential misstatements were identified, leading to a recharging of the jury. The Bushes did not object to the final charge, rendering it non-reviewable under Rule 51, A.R.Civ. P. Consequently, the judgment favoring Farm Bureau was affirmed. Additionally, the case included a claim of fraudulent conduct against Farm Bureau regarding the claim's handling, which had not been included in the Bushes’ counterclaim but was permitted by the trial court. Farm Bureau later withdrew this affirmative defense prior to trial.