Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Allstate Insruance v. Breeden
Citation: 105 F. App'x 217Docket: No. 03-35199; D.C. No. CV-01-01686-JJ
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; July 28, 2004; Federal Appellate Court
Allstate sought a declaration that Breeden's fire insurance policy was voided due to his misrepresentation of the extent of his loss. Breeden appealed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Allstate. The appellate court reviewed both the interpretation of state law and the summary judgment de novo, ultimately affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding for further proceedings. The court noted that Breeden's fire policy explicitly stated that willful misrepresentation could void the policy. The district court erroneously relied on the precedent set in Callaway v. Sublimity Ins. Co., which pertained to automobile insurance, rather than the applicable rule for fire insurance policies established in Eslamizar v. Am. States Ins. Co. Consequently, the summary judgment based on Callaway was vacated, and the case was remanded for reconsideration in light of Eslamizar. The court upheld the district court's partial summary judgment favoring Allstate regarding Breeden’s counterclaim for specific reasons for denying his claim, clarifying that such requirements pertain to underwriting decisions rather than claims denial under existing policies, as per Oregon Revised Statutes. Additionally, Breeden was found to lack standing to claim that Allstate breached its contract with the mortgagee, Chase Manhattan Bank, making the partial summary judgment on that claim appropriate. Each party is to bear its own costs on appeal. The decision is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in future cases except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.